Last year a federal court told Alabama that its congressional map was racially gerrymandered and "it's not close." They ordered the legislature to redraw its map so it would include two majority Black districts instead of one, and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling earlier this year.
Republicans in Alabama responded very simply: they told the court to go fuck itself and redrew the map with—again—only one majority Black district:
Alabama Republicans admitted they consulted with US House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in a bid to keep the seat red. “I did hear from Speaker McCarthy,” said state Sen. Steve Livingston (R), who sponsored the new map. “It was quite simple. He said, ‘I’m interested in keeping my majority.’ That was basically his conversation.” Alabama’s Republican governor Kay Ivey applauded the legislature for defying the federal courts. “The legislature knows our state, our people and our districts better than the federal courts or activist groups,” Ivey said.
Ivey sounds just like Southern governors in the '50s and '60 confronted first with school desegregation and then the Civil Rights Act. They had very similar responses to federal court orders.
Today the federal panel hearing Alabama's case, like those older courts, finally declared it had had enough. They threw out Alabama's map and appointed a special master to take it out of the legislature's hands and draw one that was legal.
I often wonder if Chief Justice John Roberts harbors any private misgivings over gutting the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. In the ten years since, with preclearance no longer required, he's seen state after Southern state—North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida—revert almost instantly to its racist roots. The proposition that 50 years had passed and there was no longer good reason to keep these states under close watch is obviously in tatters.
Shelby is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past century. Its reasoning was specious from the start, and time has only confirmed how arrogant Roberts and his colleagues were to cavalierly overturn a law that had been reauthorized almost unanimously by Congress only seven years earlier. Do they ever regret what they did?
My mother used to say "if you were really sorry, you wouldn't have done it in the first place."
I think that applies here. They knew exactly what would happen, and they did it anyway. They did it because they are fine with this outcome.
Yep, Kevin is mistaking Chief Justice Roberts as a man of conscience.
Roberts has spent virtually his entire career trying to gut civil rights.
He’s thrilled.
His place in history as the Roger Taney of the 21st century is well-secured.
Yeah. I don't think Roberts gives a single flying fuck.
Speaking of (worst decisions of the past century), you should do a rank list of the worst decisions in the last 100 years -- Korematsu, Dobbs, Citizens United, Bush v Gore, and Hobby Lobby?
Don't forget Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, where the conservative justices threw out the evidence and then created their own fictional case to rule on.
Why what they did doesn't count as contempt of court?
It more or less is, but the judges would have to say so explicitly and then-- the hard part-- figure out some penalty to impose on a sovereign state's entire legislature (and governor, apparently, from what I'm seeing today). In the meantime that wouldn't solve the problem at hand, and it would inflame the situation even more than it already is.
What the court ended up doing is pretty much the equivalent of outright contempt, by appointing their own special master to draw up acceptable district maps, and using unusual and extremely direct language about what Alabama is doing.
Alabama seems determined to stage a replay of Cooper v Aaron. Maybe they figure the odds are better with the current SCOTUS. Or maybe they're just pig-headed neo-Confederates, who can say.
Could try to take away some representatives under 14A sec 2, but it's a stretch.
I suspect Mr. Balls 'n' Strikes doesn't like the emerging narrative about his tenure, that's not hard to guess.
I see no evidence that he's changed his mind about goals or strategy, and he's clearly still dedicated to the legal principle that the constitution awards Republicans a 5-8% edge and wins any disputes.
He's a machine Republican grown in Leo Leo's vat, and has been rewarded like one. I suspect any misgivings are about tactics and resentments.
"I often wonder if Chief Justice John Roberts harbors any private misgivings over gutting the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. In the ten years since, with preclearance no longer required, he's seen state after Southern state revert almost instantly to its racist roots. The proposition that 50 years had passed and there was no longer good reason to keep these states under close watch is obviously in tatters."
Jesus [redacted], Kevin, do you think Roberts was writing in good faith in Shelby County? Roberts has spent his entire career working to take voting rights away from everyone other than white Republicans: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222
"Roberts has spent his entire career working to take voting rights away from everyone other than white Republicans: ..."
Strange then that he cast the decisive vote against the Republicans in this case.
Roberts is also a man deeply concerned with his own power, with the power and electoral prospects of his party,and with the legitimacy of the court. Even he understands that there’s real limits to what he can get away with before the Democrats will come under so much pressure to reform the court that it will be impossible for them to resist.
If you look at his voting record, he’s far from being a moderate. He’s mainly a guy who picks his spots. But he wants what all other Republicans want, he’s just interested in doing it in a somewhat less in your face kind of way.
"...But he wants what all other Republicans want, ..."
Republicans don't all want the same things.
Maybe there’s some differences at the edges but there’s also a very clear commonality of interests and beliefs. The Republican Party is a party of white Christian nationalism and white grievance. That is its essence and its naked id.
I suppose that one could belong to the Republican Party because of its positions on health care or foreign policy but fundamentally if you’re voting for a Republican, you’re voting for white supremacy.
I suspect that such regret would require a level of self-examination that is beyond the Chief Justice's ability and/or inclination.
Based on the enforcement provisions written in the 14th amendment itself (!!!), Shelby is the opinion that leads one to say the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Asking Roberts whether he’s got regrets about what he did to African Americans is basically a lot like asking Hitler whether he regrets what he did to the Jews. What he regrets is that’s it’s lead to criticism of him. But the return to the Confederacy is a desired outcome and not an unintended consequence.
👍👍👍👍This is so right on.
Being Republican means never having to say you’re sorry, never taking responsibility for anything and never having any regrets.
C’mon Kevin. You’re smarter than this.
I wonder if Abe got it wrong about the wayward sisters
In 160+ years since the civil war, Dixie states have consistently elected state legislators dedicated to the continuation of white power and opposition to progressive income redistribution
Maybe we should just concede they need their own flag. Start with Texas and go straight East to GA then turn right. They keep whatever mil and gov facilities are there now, Porous borders
They get SMU, Ole Miss, Texas Tech, pro gun, pro life and whatever pollution they want to dump in the Gulf
We get Stanford MIT CalTech AND save countless resources trying to force equality on banana republics hiding behind states rights
There are A LOT of US military bases in the Olde South, with corresponding staffing and equipment. No way they should get that. Didn't the "War of Northern Aggression" (heh) start shortly after President Buchanan had a lot of materiel transferred into "Dixie" bases? Disarming his own country to assist what he must have felt was a better one?
I also think of the massive numbers of Democrats who reside in those "red" states, and their rights, including life, liberty and property. I can't abide just letting these people be effectively kicked out of their own country.
I also think of the massive numbers of Democrats who reside in those "red" states, and their rights, including life, liberty and property. I can't abide just letting these people be effectively kicked out of their own country.
Happens after every civil war or national breakup. Some people who don’t want to join the splinter country end up there anyway. In 1776, lots of loyal British citizens found themselves stuck in America. Never stopped new countries from forming in the past. Shouldn’t stop new countries from forming in the future either. A peaceful separation that results in a few million people on the wrong side of the border is better than a bloody civil war that results in the same situation.
Yes, yes, cavalierly argue that the best path forward is to break apart and weaken the US while ignoring that that would give the confederates in *every* state exactly what they want (I'm sure that the State of Liberty weirdos in the PacificNW would be thrilled if we established the precedent that the way to resolve political differences is balkanization) while likewise ignoring that the red states are just barely red (more people in Texas voted for Biden than did people in New York, for example).
I'm sure that you and Marjorie Taylor Greene are on to something here.
If we divorce the old Confederacy then they will find themselves considerably poorer due to the loss of their enormous tax subsidy from blue states. Education funding, highway funding, and all the anti-poverty programs including social security, medicare, and Obamacare - the standard of living in Confederate states will drop significantly and noticeably. The gap in standard of living between blue states and red states will become even starker than it is today. And then even hard core MAGAts in those states will have to begin asking themselves: is it worth it?
Meanwhile, those of us in blue states will be noticeably *better* off, having jettisoned the least educated and least productive states from our budgets.
And while I agree that the moral issues here are significant, we should keep in mind that many MAGAts themselves are demanding this. Giving someone exactly what they are clearly and repeatedly asking for is always defensible.
Agree- many progressive folks reside in Dixie, but hey- majority rules, just like we say in CA & MA. Again for 160+ years the Dixie majority has voted very red.
As for federal installations, given the economic impact, I doubt the sisters would go in peace. Again, think of the resources saved not battling that mindset. Bonus incentive They get federal installations IF they take NRA and Fox with them !
otoh GA now has 2 blue senators. Trend or blip? I’ll be most curious to see which party wins the next governor race but I cynically believe the GOP “blip” fix will not be appealing to progressives, but simply voter suppression, requiring yet another huge expenditure of federal resources. Be thrilled to be wrong.
Popular Dixie Bumper Sticker-
“Civil War
Yankees 1, Rebels 0
First Half”
I live in a blue city in a very red state (TN). We're fighting hard as you can see in the media. Today one of the Tennessee Three announced she was running against Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. She won't win but she will inspire Dems and make Blackburn work for it.
Please don't talk about throwing us out with the red bathwater. Donate to Gloria Johnson instead.
Meh. If people want to live in a libertarian paradise they can move to Singapore or something. Or if they want to live in a Christianist paradise, they can move to Russia or Hungary. Those states belong to the US. We fought a war to keep 'em. There are plenty of people living in them who make a positive contribution to life and the country. Let's not forget them. They are worth the effort.
"...If people want to live in a libertarian paradise they can move to Singapore or something. .."
Singapore is a very strange example of a libertarian paradise. All the things you dislike aren't the same thing.
Singapore is a "benevolent" autocracy, quite the opposite of libertarian. Singapore is known as a fine city; in that you can get fined for chewing gum or any number of other activities. The grocery stores have signs instructing you to eat your sushi within 8 hours of buying it. Talk to a cabby and they complain bitterly that they can't own their own cab but have to lease a freshly cleaned and maintained cab from the government on a daily basis. And we won't get into the use of caining or the death penalty for drug offenses.
Yeah, Singapore was a bad choice. I think I meant it ironically, but nobody laughed. What would be a good choice? The Bahamas? Belize?
I think that it's possible that Roberts was simply naive about Shelby. It's a sort of naivete that is common also among liberals - "We defeated racism. We elected a black President, fer gawd sakes"
Let's not forget that it was Roberts that saved Obamacare, after all. There is a functioning brain and conscience there.
So yeah, I have the same wonder as Kevin - how does the Chief feel about Shelby now?
It's a sort of naivete that is common also among liberals…
Pretty sure if that naïveté existed in the past, it was extinguished between 2017-2020, when all the racists let their freak flags fly loud and proud all over the nation.
"I think that it's possible that Roberts was simply naive about Shelby"
While it's important to not fall into the trap of thinking that SCOTUS judges are cackling masterminds, it's equally important to not give in to thinking that folks like Roberts are well-meaning if not well-understanding. Roberts is smart enough and well-resourced enough to generally know what he's about.
As an example: when Roberts was on the DC Circuit, he famously wrote a (thankfully, dissenting) opinion about how the Endangered Species Act, rooted as it was in Congress's interstate commerce authority, could not be used to protect a species of toad that only existed within California, because there was no interstate nature to the amphibian. Roberts is no dummy and knew damn well that the ESA regulates COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY--and not the species themselves--for the purpose of *protecting* species like the toad, but he nonetheless wrote the opinion he did because he's at least a bit of a hack and would like the ESA to be less powerful than what Congress wrote.
Yeah, if you insist on turning your political rivals/opposition into cackling caricatures of calamity, you won't understand them very well, which means you will be less effective in countering them.
The opinion you cite seems like an opinion that flows from a desired outcome. Motivated reasoning. Which is something every human being engages in. We have a bunch of institutions meant to slow down motivated reasoning, which are only partially successful.
I do wonder, though if what's happening now was anticipated by the Chief. I mean, he might have thought, "Well, some of them old boys will try stuff, and the courts will shoot them down, and I'm fine with that". Or this could be a complete surprise. Dunno which.
"Motivated reasoning. Which is something every human being engages in."
Again, it's important to avoid either demonizing or normalizing things like this. Roberts was not just engaging in some inescapable universal human foible in the hapless toad case--he was actively cobbling together nonsense arguments that he knew were nonsense in support of the outcome he wanted to see.
Roberts isn't the worst at outcome-determinative justicing (as best I can tell, in that arena Kavanaugh is King), but again: he knows what he is about.
Roberts is naive about Shelby the same way Roger Taney was naive about slavery.
Come on now Roberts clerked for Rehnquist in 1980. He knew.
Throughout Roberts's career in and out of government he's insisted that law and regulation should recognize no distinction of race-- in a case during HW Bush's administration, when he was in the Solicitor General's office, he actually argued against the government's own position, saying that FCC minority ownership rules were unconstitutional. It may be the single most consistent line in his record.
So no, I don't think he was naive about racism being a thing of the past. If-- and it's a big if-- he was naive about anything, imho it would have been in expecting much more genteel and roundabout suppression of black voters, kind of like it was in the 70s and 80s when the real dirty work was done by poll-watchers on election day (which is where Rehnquist cut his suppression teeth). It could be effective without getting in the faces of judges or national-level politicians. And over time, maybe it would stop working so well, and the country would become more responsive to black voters as well as white ones, and that would be how society and the political system should interact. (Incidentally, I think freeing up the poll-watchers is one big reason the Rs have been so hot on not allowing extended voting periods but insisting on election-day voting.)
In other words, on this issue the guy looks to me like a legal formalist who's fundamentally not terribly interested in the practical effects of that formalism on living human beings. Nor do I think he's particularly troubled by the kind of customary de facto racism he would likely have seen coming of age in metro Chicago, at least not as an actionable legal question.
In terms of knowing how properly to argue this remember that Roberts (and Thomas) undoubtably remember their law school Remedies class just as well as their Constitutional Law class.
This stripe of republican may not actually be racist in the sense of being anti-black people, but its possible to not be a racist but at the same time disagree with progressive ideas about remedies for past discrimination.
For me, that's how you can win a reasoned argument. Of course, Alabama's argument now may well be that they wouldn't have a problem with five majority black districts as long as they voted R.
I think viewing it in the frame of remedies vs. racism helps analytically.
For me, that's how you can win a reasoned argument.
Me too. Of course, I have yet to see such a reasoned argument.
Now that is a good one. And in only 13 words too. 🙂
No one necessarily says that that kind of formalism is racist in *intent* or not honestly held, but rather that its real-world results can generate harms. And KBJ had quite a bit to say about 14th amendment remediation of prior issues and whether those remedies were race neutral in intent and/or effect. Intended chiefly for the Chief's consideration, maybe, as he is reportedly a keen student of our history.
"remember that Roberts (and Thomas) undoubtably remember their law school Remedies class just as well as their Constitutional Law class"
It's been half a century since Thomas attended law school, so I doubt it. He and Roberts both have really only ever practiced and sat at the appellate level, so "remedies" isn't really something they've had to grapple with.
This is actually a sorta big problem with the Supremes--they have essentially no trial court experience, and it's often plain to see that they have very little understanding of how trials work.
I think your analysis is exactly right.
But, as I said at the time, what Roberts was interested in saving was the electoral prospects of the Republican Party. There was a very strong feeling among most political observers that there would’ve been an immediate and powerful backlash against his party if the Supreme Court had struck down Obamacare on what would’ve been astonishingly flimsy grounds.
Basically, if he could’ve gotten rid of Obamacare without risking an electoral wipeout for the Republican Party, he would’ve done so without the slightest hesitation.
Shelby is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past century. Its reasoning was specious from the start, and time has only confirmed how arrogant Roberts and his colleagues were to cavalierly overturn a law that had been reauthorized almost unanimously by Congress only seven years earlier.
...and your point is?
I quoted the last para of Kevin post, but it has somehow been replaced. But anyway, Kevin unloads therein on Southern politics and its "morals". having grown up in Kentucky in the 50's and 60s, I wasmeaning to say that nothing in the last 200+ years in the South has changed. It's still rotten, yes, but that's no surprise
If roberts regrets the shelby decision, he's more of a fool than i thought because this was the obvious outcome.
👍👍👍👍👍
I've lived my whole life with people like Roberts, and I have one conclusion about them.
I believe that it is fundamentally essential to Robert's good self-image for him to believe that he, himself, is always doing the right thing. Lots of people are like this.
Where Roberts differs from most people is that he is imperviously able to lie to himself, and it is absolutely impossible to convince him that he did something wrong by presenting him with any objective truth.
Just search for "Judge Roberts apologizes", and you will see that your search returns are non existent. Because "If you do nothing wrong, you never have to apologize."
"Do they ever regret what they did?"
No.
Are you kidding? Roberts has spent his entire career campaigning for disenfranchisement.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/
"I often wonder if Chief Justice John Roberts harbors any private misgivings..."
Please tell us again how liberals have to come to terms with the difficulties of educating black kids.
Jesus H fucking Christ.
I'm so old, I remember after Obergefell was decided, Texas Guv Greg Abbott ordered county clerk's not to issue same sex marriage licenses. The Supremes threatened to hold Abbott in contempt and issue an arrest warrant for him if he did not rescind his executive order. The Court has power, but this is a different court that now plays nicely with white supremacists and other bigots.