BREAKING: SCOTUS denies Democrats redistricting balderdash

A huge win for the GOP has come from the Supreme Court in which they ruled to halt a lower court order in Alabama that it must redraw its previously passed Congressional map that would have given Democrats an eternal advantage in the polls.

The vote was 5-4, with Justice Roberts joining the left as he typically does, in dissent. SCOTUS now has halted the lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its congressional map, which diluted Black voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. This is just one example of how scummy the left is in their quest for power.

The SCOTUS stay is obviously a huge win for Republicans and a blow to a coalition of Dems/civil rights groups seeking an additional Black opportunity seat in AL (and LA/SC). The 6R-1D GOP map will stand for 2022, and possibly longer.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 7, 2022

The Democrats never thought the Alabama map would be challenged on the grounds of the Voting Rights Act. They were always behind the eight ball when it came to stopping the Republican map in Alabama. A full decision is probably going to come next year but it's likely not going to be one that weaponizes the VRA to produce districting maps that stack up in favor of the Democrats while not allowing the GOP to gerrymander.

What that means is that not only did the liberals lose in this specific instance, but they could lose a lot more all across the country in regards to their use of racial quotas for congressional districts once a final decision is delivered. [Doesn't that sound a little like, "I'm going to nominate a woman of color for the Supreme Court?]

Roberts is probably one of the worst Justices ever to sit on the SCOTUS. His only standard seems to be to go along to get along and he has no clear ideology as far as one can tell.

The potential irony of the SCOTUS decision is wonderful to contemplate. 

Activist groups suing Alabama over a 30-year-old district map could potentially destroy the racial gerrymandering grift for the entire country and this nonsense would come to a halt, and that's what seems to be what's going on. Although Roberts punked out, as usual in the decision to lift the order, in his dissent, he noted that he believes the only thing holding it up is that SCOTUS needs to get rid of past bad precedent and he would vote like a constitutionalist.

In other words, Roberts is likely to join a 6-3 majority next year in delivering a decisive blow to Democrat attempts to rig the gerrymandering process [where they can draw 22-4 D to R maps in New York but Republican states cannot do the same].

* * *

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

* * *

The SCOTUS doesn't go along with the Democrat's point of view on the VRA and with Alabama in play, the left will pay a bigger price than simply losing a seat in the South. And now you can bet that the GOP in North Carolina as also going to seek relief from the SCOTUS after the decision last week.

 

In summary, this decision sets up the impending death blow for many of the unconstitutional provisions of the VRA that have long given Democrats an unfair way to stack the deck. If gerrymandering is legal, and it absolutely is, then it should be available to both sides equally. 

The games have begun.

Tweet

The Times is Full of Crop

On the Fox News Website

The Gray Lady is at it as usual. The New York Times  reported on the march in Selma, Alabama on Sunday, commemorating the 50th anniversary reenactment of "Bloody Sunday" when Selma police clashed with protesters that day. 

Gracing the upper fold of the liberal rag was a photo of the marchers, starring Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barak Obama, aka Batak Obama, aka Barrack Obama--depending on which Social Security card he uses, since he had at least 22 in all) and the very right Reverend holy man of the cloth and racial leader of the entire black world, Alfred Charles Sharpton. 

The Four Race-Baiting Amigos

Not seen in the photo was an actual president of the United States, George W. Bush along with his wife Laura. "All the news that's fit to print" obviously doesn't include "all the photo that fits our agenda." The Times cropped them out of it.

Oh sure, they mentioned Mr. Bush's presence, but you had to dig deep into the paper to find it.

Imagine the honest impact the photo would have made if it showed a black president and a white president standing side-by-side. But it didn't fit the liberal agenda.

For his part, Eric Holder attacked the 2013 Supreme Court decision that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a vote of 5-to-4. The vote allowed 9 southern states to change their election laws without advanced federal approval. In school, we called it "states" rights."

The main argument and core of the disagreement between parties was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of racial discrimination.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority, "Our country has changed. While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."

You may recall when, in Philadelphia, PA, voter registration was blocked by a group of men wielding sticks and intimidating white voters. This voter suppression was brought to Holder's attention and all we heard from the DoJ was crickets. There is a blatant double standard. The video doesn't lie, and Holder saw it.

And let's face it, if minorities suddenly began voting Republican, we would see no problems with voter suppression and our borders would be sealed.

Is The Times biased? 

Perhaps a better question would be: does The Times represent a pro-America point of view?

To make your own decision on that question, check out The Times reporting on the death of Alger Hiss, an admitted spy for the Soviet Union.

Tweet