- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 6:57 pm to Jbird
"Non-legal partisan denounces valid application of law."
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:30 am to Jbird
Iirc there are more Latinos in TX thank blacks. This redistricting apparently opens up more Latino districts or broadens them. Why do blacks get their own specifically drawn districts if Latinos don't get theirs?
Posted on 12/6/25 at 7:41 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Please read the dissent.
Kagan quotes legislators SPECIFICALLY STATING racial motives (such as creating safe Latino districts, versus Dem Districts).
Please read THE LAW. That is nowhere near enough to prove that race was the dominant reason for the redistricting--which is the standard.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:14 am to HagaDaga
quote:
Iirc there are more Latinos in TX thank blacks. This redistricting apparently opens up more Latino districts or broadens them. Why do blacks get their own specifically drawn districts if Latinos don't get theirs?
It is an interesting history.
Across the South, including Texas, Democrats controlled state legislatures in the 70s and 80s. Republicans figured out that they could work with black leaders in advocating for "black districts." This would concentrate the blacks in one district. (And as Texas is arguing in this case, often concentrate even non-minority Democrats in the district). This would mean more Republicans outside of the concentrated majority-minority districts. A lot of Democrats did support such moves, although some Democrats realized what was happening.
These majority-minority districts in the South played a key role in the historic 1994 Republican takeover.
Today, the Democrats are on the side of wanting to reduce majority-minority districts - so they are going to oppose not only districts drawn which have (or were designed to have) a majority-minority, but anything that concentrates Democrats in a district. Of course, that is, until lack of concentration does not benefit them (like in the Nashville metro, where they want a concentrated district).
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:21 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Her point, if you actually read the dissent, is that the case below was VERY fact intensive and that SCOTUS (as an appellate court rather than a fact finder) owes a certain level of deference to the District Judge who heard the case and made the factual determinations.
As such, she felt that SCOTUS should not have discarded the work of the District Judge without giving the parties time for a full briefing and a full hearing, rather than granting interim relief without either.
The competing concern (obviously) is the upcoming statutory timelines related to 2026 elections.
Her argument is sound, but we all know the lower court was gaming the system for the Democrats’ benefit. She wants the Conservatives to judge strictly on merits while the Left hijacks the system.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 10:23 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
There is nothing groundbreaking (or even "liberal") in those views.
If they were regularly applied, rather than employed only when it favors Democrats.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:33 am to BobABooey
'Perusal' does not necessarily mean looking at something with great detail. Depending on the context how used, it can also imply a quick, cursory scan. I believe that is what she is seeming to imply.
Posted on 12/8/25 at 11:44 am to HubbaBubba
quote:"Peruse" is a weird word, in that it has two definitions that seem to contradict one another ... at least in part.
'Perusal' does not necessarily mean looking at something with great detail. Depending on the context how used, it can also imply a quick, cursory scan. I believe that is what she is seeming to imply.
quote:The first usage developed in the 1500s. The second developed in the 19th century.
peruse
transitive verb
pe·?ruse p?-'rüz
1a: to examine or consider with attention and in detail : study
1b: to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner
Why? Etymologists don't have a lot to say on the matter. They simply classify it as a "contronym" -- a word that has two opposite meanings.
This post was edited on 12/8/25 at 11:47 am
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News