- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: SCOTUS oral arguments @9am- Louisiana vs Callais (Voting Rights Act)
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:10 am to cajunandy
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:10 am to cajunandy
quote:
Sota mayer has a tell, when she gets angry in her questioning she is on the losing side. It sounded like she was getting angry.
She was salty in that last exchange, cutting off the La lawyer at the end.
1
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:15 am to Bard
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:17 am to Bard
Maybe we should use ChatGPT to draw the boundaries. Something like "draw X number of districts in the state of X based on population. These districts should be as compact and run along major roads, rivers, or county (parish) lines.
I wonder how different the districts shapes would be. Dont let race or any other demographic angle influence it.
I wonder how different the districts shapes would be. Dont let race or any other demographic angle influence it.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:20 am to Bourre
Guess we’ll see if the Congressional district some Republicans in Louisiana promised Cleo will remain.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:22 am to alphaandomega
quote:
Maybe we should use ChatGPT to draw the boundaries. Something like "draw X number of districts in the state of X based on population. These districts should be as compact and run along major roads, rivers, or county (parish) lines.
Come on, dude. You know damn well that would reduce some of the political favors handed out between politicians, and we can’t be having that.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:27 am to ragincajun03
Counsel for Louisiana did a great job.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:30 am to Timeoday
It's easy to get away with this when it's 1980 and America is a country of white/black. But in a country flooded with Hispanics and others, it gets way harder to justify carving out an electoral fiefdom solely for blacks.
The Dems weaponized Congressional redistricting. -blatant racial gerrymandering-with absurd geographical districts- Thornburg v Gingles won't withstand scrutiny with this court-the "Gingles Test' that deliberately excluded whites also excludes all these other races. Another way the Democrats ultimately screwed themselves. And another way that the lower courts mandating unequal protection under the law has come back to bite Dems.
SCOTUS has expanded this beyond Louisiana, and I expect this court gets it right. Or else we are really fricked because then SCOTUS would be reaffirming unequal protection under the law by allowing racially discriminatory gerrymandering. If the Congressional Caucus is looking at being reduced by a third and with Texas, Mizzou, N Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas etc already moving in this direction- -this will be a political nuclear bomb dropped right on the Dems just in time for the midterms.
BOOM. 30+ new GOP seats.
And don't forget-this also allows 4-5 months after these arguments for Democrats to engage in violent and hysterical street theatre to "warn" SCOTUS not to do it.
The Dems weaponized Congressional redistricting. -blatant racial gerrymandering-with absurd geographical districts- Thornburg v Gingles won't withstand scrutiny with this court-the "Gingles Test' that deliberately excluded whites also excludes all these other races. Another way the Democrats ultimately screwed themselves. And another way that the lower courts mandating unequal protection under the law has come back to bite Dems.
SCOTUS has expanded this beyond Louisiana, and I expect this court gets it right. Or else we are really fricked because then SCOTUS would be reaffirming unequal protection under the law by allowing racially discriminatory gerrymandering. If the Congressional Caucus is looking at being reduced by a third and with Texas, Mizzou, N Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas etc already moving in this direction- -this will be a political nuclear bomb dropped right on the Dems just in time for the midterms.
BOOM. 30+ new GOP seats.
And don't forget-this also allows 4-5 months after these arguments for Democrats to engage in violent and hysterical street theatre to "warn" SCOTUS not to do it.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:38 am to Lsupimp
Justices Kagan, Wise Latina and Diversity Hire have all said that blacks were being denied voting rights. I'm waiting for one of the lawyers to say something along the lines of "no one of any race is being denied their voting rights" and then make them list exactly what rights are being denied.
That's the point where they must then delve into the territory that what they are actually arguing is that Section 2 gives minorities a "right to win" and such a thing is in no way supported by anything in the Constitution.
That's the point where they must then delve into the territory that what they are actually arguing is that Section 2 gives minorities a "right to win" and such a thing is in no way supported by anything in the Constitution.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:39 am to tigersandsaints
Retarded
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:43 am to Bard
It really does make it clear how completely Democrats have replaced Constitutional requirements for equality with post-Constitutional progressive desire for equity. I don't see this court affirming that.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 10:44 am to tigersandsaints
It is the "vote dilution" argument.
Black votes are rendered meaningless because, of course, too many whites.
So dumb and it will be removed by the supremes.
Oh, BTW, they are looking nationwide.
Bye, bye racial gerrymandering, nationwide.
Black votes are rendered meaningless because, of course, too many whites.
So dumb and it will be removed by the supremes.
Oh, BTW, they are looking nationwide.
Bye, bye racial gerrymandering, nationwide.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:18 am to IvoryBillMatt
Who is this attorney? He just slaughtered Sonia Sotomayor.
Sotomayor was emotional, too emotional.
Sotomayor was emotional, too emotional.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:26 am to Bourre
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. "Just trust me on this...because it's how I feel and not based on any facts"
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:26 am to BeefSupreme
quote:
It is the "vote dilution" argument.
And that's the problem because it relies on the presumption that minorities vote monolithically. That presumption itself is racist, especially in light of the fact that of the seats held by blacks, the vast majority (as just mentioned in the arguments) are held in districts which are not racially gerrymandered.
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:28 am to Bourre
Jeff Landry made this more complicated:
1- vengeance against Garret Graves for not supporting him for governor ( I’m not defending GG either)
2- a deal made with Cleo Fields for black support for his governor’s race
The legislature cowered and agreed to map….
1- vengeance against Garret Graves for not supporting him for governor ( I’m not defending GG either)
2- a deal made with Cleo Fields for black support for his governor’s race
The legislature cowered and agreed to map….
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:36 am to alphaandomega
quote:
Maybe we should use ChatGPT to draw the boundaries. Something like "draw X number of districts in the state of X based on population. These districts should be as compact and run along major roads, rivers, or county (parish) lines.
There were several proposed maps that did this but it meant someone was giving up their district.
LINK
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 11:39 am
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:36 am to KillTheGophers
quote:
Who is this attorney? He just slaughtered Sonia Sotomayor.
Ben Aguinaga. Bright future.
Federalist Society Bio
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 11:53 am
Posted on 10/15/25 at 11:41 am to Bourre
After listening to most of the oral arguments, I was struck by the unprofessional demeanor of the liberal justices toward the attorneys challenging Section 2, constantly interrupting them—while conservative justices graciously allowed full responses.
This post was edited on 10/15/25 at 11:52 am
Posted on 10/15/25 at 12:13 pm to corndawg85
When can we reasonably expect a judgment/opinion produced by SCOTUS on this issue?
Posted on 10/15/25 at 12:14 pm to corndawg85
quote:
I was struck by the unprofessional demeanor of the liberal justices toward the attorneys challenging Section 2, constantly interrupting them—while conservative justices graciously allowed full responses.
So just another day at SCOTUS when the liberal justices disagree with something.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News