October 18, 2025
Racial Gerrymandering at SCOTUS
Timothy Birdnow
AMDG
Alan Dershowitz thinks SCOTUS will overturn racial gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Alan Dershowitz Predicts Supreme Court Will Deliver Shift in Election Law
From the article;
Look, everyone has the right to vote if they are a citizen, registered and in good standing (there are conditions that must be met to have the vote which is often forgotten and dismissed by Democrats)but not everyone has tghe right to POWER. Past discrimination does not assure you some place at the table if you would be outvoted under normal circumstances. Racial gerrymandering is an attempt to overrule the rights of the majority to have their votes count in favor of a privileged class which is guaranteed power out of some misguided sense of collective guilt.
Nowhere is such a right guaranteed in the Constitution; this is another of those "penumbra" rights assumed by the courts that do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution. Yes, we have the Voting Rights Act, but it does not guarantee power, just the right to vote. Racial gerrymandering is nothing but putting a thumb on the scale and it has real-world consequences and disenfranchises the majority.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who benefits. IF you are going to discriminate, what is fairer? Discriminating for the minority or for the majority of people who at least have more people who will benefit? It's a simple cost/benefit analysis when looked at in this way. But even this isn't fair and we all know it. It's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" so the default position should be the equivalent of a jurist hippocratic oath "first do no harm". Courts overriding the will of the people (who elected state legislatures and governors who set the district boundaries in the first place) is radical interventionism in the body politic. It's the equivalen of exploratory surgery on a patient who came in for a cold.
And if we start looking at past discrimination as a guide then all is lost because so many grouTimothy Birdnow
AMDG
Alan Dershowitz thinks SCOTUS will overturn racial gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Alan Dershowitz Predicts Supreme Court Will Deliver Shift in Election Law[link]
From the article;
Dershowitz said the Court appears ready to apply the same reasoning it used in the affirmative action rulings to voting districts, curbing efforts to design congressional maps that favor specific racial groups.
"This is not like college admissions, where you can move to a meritocracy, and we know what a meritocracy means. But you can’t have a meritocracy when it comes to creating a district. Creation of the district either will help black people or will hurt or will help white voters or will hurt them. There’s no neutral principle,” Dershowitz told host Greta Van Susteren. "And I suspect the Supreme Court is moving away from focusing on race in the electoral context, as well as in the college-admission context. So if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that the district will not do well in front of the Supreme Court.”
Dershowitz referenced Justice Felix Frankfurter’s 1940s warning that the Court should avoid the "political thicket” of gerrymandering.
"Back in the 1940s, Justice Frankfurter purposely and very, very correctly talked about the Supreme Court staying out of the thicket, the political thicket, of racial gerrymandering and other forms of gerrymandering, because there’s no neutral answer to this,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said four key justices will likely determine the outcome.
Finally, a Faith-Based, America-First Wealth Manager With No Allegiance to Wall Street, ESG, or DEI Agendas.
"There’s four key votes in this. And I suspect we’re going to see a lot less sympathy for creating legislative areas which guarantee black seats in Congress and in other elected offices. I think we’re going to see a diminution of the sensitivity toward kind of creating affirmative action in legislative redistricting,” Dershowitz said.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it may soon end the practice of drawing congressional districts based on race. During arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote could decide the case, along with that of Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed civil rights advocates on when race-based remedies should come to an end.
"The issue, as you know, is that this court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said. "What exactly do you think the end point should be for the intentional use of race to create districts?”
end
Look, everyone has the right to vote if they are a citizen, registered and in good standing (there are conditions that must be met to have the vote which is often forgotten and dismissed by Democrats)but not everyone has tghe right to POWER. Past discrimination does not assure you some place at the table if you would be outvoted under normal circumstances. Racial gerrymandering is an attempt to overrule the rights of the majority to have their votes count in favor of a privileged class which is guaranteed power out of some misguided sense of collective guilt.
Nowhere is such a right guaranteed in the Constitution; this is another of those "penumbra" rights assumed by the courts that do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution. Yes, we have the Voting Rights Act, but it does not guarantee power, just the right to vote. Racial gerrymandering is nothing but putting a thumb on the scale and it has real-world consequences and disenfranchises the majority.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who benefits. IF you are going to discriminate, what is fairer? Discriminating for the minority or for the majority of people who at least have more people who will benefit? It's a simple cost/benefit analysis when looked at in this way. But even this isn't fair and we all know it.
The courts overruling the elected officials (who are accountable to the People) is tyrannical and stupid. Since the courts cannot make a truly fair assessment it becomes a matter of pure political power on the part of the court making the ruling, their political bent, and judicial philosophy overruling the People based just on their own beliefs.
And if we go down that road where does it end? Will we have to create an all-Irish district because the Irish suffered past discrimination? An all Italian? A Jewish?Maybe we should have a majority dentist district, since nobody likes a dentist anyway. The problem with "historical discrimination" is that everyone suffered it in the past at some point; it does not impact people of this daya nd age. Proportional representation based on group identity is as unAmerican as it comes.
Doctors have the Hippocratic Oath, and the have the motto "first, do no harm" yet here we have judges doing much harm without understanding or caring about the consequences of their actions. They override the elected officials to gerrymander crazy minority-majority districts not based on law or on reason but on political ideology and an emotional appeal to "fairness" which artificially empowers minorities because they think it's fair. It's not and it's not Constitutional. Otherwise the framers of the Constitution would have specifically put the courts in charge of redistricting in the first place. They didn't; in fact they gave the central government no authority at all over how elections were to be run, or even if there would be any at all. Most people don't realize it but as late as 1860 some states held no popular election for President, preferring to have the state legislatures choose the candidate theis slate of electors who support. The Electoral College was created in no small part for that very purpose, to impose a wall of separation between the Federal government and the staes control of the vote in their respective jurisdictions. The courts were not supposed to have any authority over it. All they could do was make sure the rules in place were being followed and that only state courts at the state level.
That is why no court has EVER addressed the Constitutionality of gerrymandering. It isn't illegal based on the Constitution. Gerrymandering has been struck down under specific occasions based usually on the Voting Rights Act and only on a case-by-case basis. Certainly the Democrats used it ruthlessly to attain power and hold the Congress to a neck-and-neck race when they should be a solid minority party as of now.
So Dersh is probably right and SCOTUS may well rule this is a state's matter and that race is no grounds for courts ordering districts be redrawn. If they don't do it they should. Of course we have to worry about John Roberts and Amy Conehead Barrett crossing the line and voting with the Democrats.
AMDG
Alan Dershowitz thinks SCOTUS will overturn racial gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Alan Dershowitz Predicts Supreme Court Will Deliver Shift in Election Law
From the article;
Dershowitz said the Court appears ready to apply the same reasoning it used in the affirmative action rulings to voting districts, curbing efforts to design congressional maps that favor specific racial groups.
"This is not like college admissions, where you can move to a meritocracy, and we know what a meritocracy means. But you can’t have a meritocracy when it comes to creating a district. Creation of the district either will help black people or will hurt or will help white voters or will hurt them. There’s no neutral principle,” Dershowitz told host Greta Van Susteren. "And I suspect the Supreme Court is moving away from focusing on race in the electoral context, as well as in the college-admission context. So if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that the district will not do well in front of the Supreme Court.”
Dershowitz referenced Justice Felix Frankfurter’s 1940s warning that the Court should avoid the "political thicket” of gerrymandering.
"Back in the 1940s, Justice Frankfurter purposely and very, very correctly talked about the Supreme Court staying out of the thicket, the political thicket, of racial gerrymandering and other forms of gerrymandering, because there’s no neutral answer to this,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said four key justices will likely determine the outcome.
Finally, a Faith-Based, America-First Wealth Manager With No Allegiance to Wall Street, ESG, or DEI Agendas.
"There’s four key votes in this. And I suspect we’re going to see a lot less sympathy for creating legislative areas which guarantee black seats in Congress and in other elected offices. I think we’re going to see a diminution of the sensitivity toward kind of creating affirmative action in legislative redistricting,” Dershowitz said.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it may soon end the practice of drawing congressional districts based on race. During arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote could decide the case, along with that of Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed civil rights advocates on when race-based remedies should come to an end.
"The issue, as you know, is that this court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said. "What exactly do you think the end point should be for the intentional use of race to create districts?
"This is not like college admissions, where you can move to a meritocracy, and we know what a meritocracy means. But you can’t have a meritocracy when it comes to creating a district. Creation of the district either will help black people or will hurt or will help white voters or will hurt them. There’s no neutral principle,” Dershowitz told host Greta Van Susteren. "And I suspect the Supreme Court is moving away from focusing on race in the electoral context, as well as in the college-admission context. So if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that the district will not do well in front of the Supreme Court.”
Dershowitz referenced Justice Felix Frankfurter’s 1940s warning that the Court should avoid the "political thicket” of gerrymandering.
"Back in the 1940s, Justice Frankfurter purposely and very, very correctly talked about the Supreme Court staying out of the thicket, the political thicket, of racial gerrymandering and other forms of gerrymandering, because there’s no neutral answer to this,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said four key justices will likely determine the outcome.
Finally, a Faith-Based, America-First Wealth Manager With No Allegiance to Wall Street, ESG, or DEI Agendas.
"There’s four key votes in this. And I suspect we’re going to see a lot less sympathy for creating legislative areas which guarantee black seats in Congress and in other elected offices. I think we’re going to see a diminution of the sensitivity toward kind of creating affirmative action in legislative redistricting,” Dershowitz said.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it may soon end the practice of drawing congressional districts based on race. During arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote could decide the case, along with that of Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed civil rights advocates on when race-based remedies should come to an end.
"The issue, as you know, is that this court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said. "What exactly do you think the end point should be for the intentional use of race to create districts?
Look, everyone has the right to vote if they are a citizen, registered and in good standing (there are conditions that must be met to have the vote which is often forgotten and dismissed by Democrats)but not everyone has tghe right to POWER. Past discrimination does not assure you some place at the table if you would be outvoted under normal circumstances. Racial gerrymandering is an attempt to overrule the rights of the majority to have their votes count in favor of a privileged class which is guaranteed power out of some misguided sense of collective guilt.
Nowhere is such a right guaranteed in the Constitution; this is another of those "penumbra" rights assumed by the courts that do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution. Yes, we have the Voting Rights Act, but it does not guarantee power, just the right to vote. Racial gerrymandering is nothing but putting a thumb on the scale and it has real-world consequences and disenfranchises the majority.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who benefits. IF you are going to discriminate, what is fairer? Discriminating for the minority or for the majority of people who at least have more people who will benefit? It's a simple cost/benefit analysis when looked at in this way. But even this isn't fair and we all know it. It's "damned if you do and damned if you don't" so the default position should be the equivalent of a jurist hippocratic oath "first do no harm". Courts overriding the will of the people (who elected state legislatures and governors who set the district boundaries in the first place) is radical interventionism in the body politic. It's the equivalen of exploratory surgery on a patient who came in for a cold.
And if we start looking at past discrimination as a guide then all is lost because so many grouTimothy Birdnow
AMDG
Alan Dershowitz thinks SCOTUS will overturn racial gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
Alan Dershowitz Predicts Supreme Court Will Deliver Shift in Election Law[link]
From the article;
Dershowitz said the Court appears ready to apply the same reasoning it used in the affirmative action rulings to voting districts, curbing efforts to design congressional maps that favor specific racial groups.
"This is not like college admissions, where you can move to a meritocracy, and we know what a meritocracy means. But you can’t have a meritocracy when it comes to creating a district. Creation of the district either will help black people or will hurt or will help white voters or will hurt them. There’s no neutral principle,” Dershowitz told host Greta Van Susteren. "And I suspect the Supreme Court is moving away from focusing on race in the electoral context, as well as in the college-admission context. So if I had to make a prediction, I would predict that the district will not do well in front of the Supreme Court.”
Dershowitz referenced Justice Felix Frankfurter’s 1940s warning that the Court should avoid the "political thicket” of gerrymandering.
"Back in the 1940s, Justice Frankfurter purposely and very, very correctly talked about the Supreme Court staying out of the thicket, the political thicket, of racial gerrymandering and other forms of gerrymandering, because there’s no neutral answer to this,” Dershowitz said.
Dershowitz said four key justices will likely determine the outcome.
Finally, a Faith-Based, America-First Wealth Manager With No Allegiance to Wall Street, ESG, or DEI Agendas.
"There’s four key votes in this. And I suspect we’re going to see a lot less sympathy for creating legislative areas which guarantee black seats in Congress and in other elected offices. I think we’re going to see a diminution of the sensitivity toward kind of creating affirmative action in legislative redistricting,” Dershowitz said.
The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday that it may soon end the practice of drawing congressional districts based on race. During arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose vote could decide the case, along with that of Chief Justice John Roberts, pressed civil rights advocates on when race-based remedies should come to an end.
"The issue, as you know, is that this court’s cases in a variety of contexts have said that race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time, decades in some cases, but that they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Kavanaugh said. "What exactly do you think the end point should be for the intentional use of race to create districts?”
end
Look, everyone has the right to vote if they are a citizen, registered and in good standing (there are conditions that must be met to have the vote which is often forgotten and dismissed by Democrats)but not everyone has tghe right to POWER. Past discrimination does not assure you some place at the table if you would be outvoted under normal circumstances. Racial gerrymandering is an attempt to overrule the rights of the majority to have their votes count in favor of a privileged class which is guaranteed power out of some misguided sense of collective guilt.
Nowhere is such a right guaranteed in the Constitution; this is another of those "penumbra" rights assumed by the courts that do not actually exist anywhere in the Constitution. Yes, we have the Voting Rights Act, but it does not guarantee power, just the right to vote. Racial gerrymandering is nothing but putting a thumb on the scale and it has real-world consequences and disenfranchises the majority.
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter who benefits. IF you are going to discriminate, what is fairer? Discriminating for the minority or for the majority of people who at least have more people who will benefit? It's a simple cost/benefit analysis when looked at in this way. But even this isn't fair and we all know it.
The courts overruling the elected officials (who are accountable to the People) is tyrannical and stupid. Since the courts cannot make a truly fair assessment it becomes a matter of pure political power on the part of the court making the ruling, their political bent, and judicial philosophy overruling the People based just on their own beliefs.
And if we go down that road where does it end? Will we have to create an all-Irish district because the Irish suffered past discrimination? An all Italian? A Jewish?Maybe we should have a majority dentist district, since nobody likes a dentist anyway. The problem with "historical discrimination" is that everyone suffered it in the past at some point; it does not impact people of this daya nd age. Proportional representation based on group identity is as unAmerican as it comes.
Doctors have the Hippocratic Oath, and the have the motto "first, do no harm" yet here we have judges doing much harm without understanding or caring about the consequences of their actions. They override the elected officials to gerrymander crazy minority-majority districts not based on law or on reason but on political ideology and an emotional appeal to "fairness" which artificially empowers minorities because they think it's fair. It's not and it's not Constitutional. Otherwise the framers of the Constitution would have specifically put the courts in charge of redistricting in the first place. They didn't; in fact they gave the central government no authority at all over how elections were to be run, or even if there would be any at all. Most people don't realize it but as late as 1860 some states held no popular election for President, preferring to have the state legislatures choose the candidate theis slate of electors who support. The Electoral College was created in no small part for that very purpose, to impose a wall of separation between the Federal government and the staes control of the vote in their respective jurisdictions. The courts were not supposed to have any authority over it. All they could do was make sure the rules in place were being followed and that only state courts at the state level.
That is why no court has EVER addressed the Constitutionality of gerrymandering. It isn't illegal based on the Constitution. Gerrymandering has been struck down under specific occasions based usually on the Voting Rights Act and only on a case-by-case basis. Certainly the Democrats used it ruthlessly to attain power and hold the Congress to a neck-and-neck race when they should be a solid minority party as of now.
So Dersh is probably right and SCOTUS may well rule this is a state's matter and that race is no grounds for courts ordering districts be redrawn. If they don't do it they should. Of course we have to worry about John Roberts and Amy Conehead Barrett crossing the line and voting with the Democrats.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1891 words, total size 12 kb.
1
Tim, please close the link properly in this article! It's nearly impossible to read the way it is now!
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at October 18, 2025 10:18 PM (kRAxH)
2
I just saw that. Will do.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at October 19, 2025 06:24 AM (riDsN)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0157, elapsed 0.1942 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1842 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.1842 seconds, 185 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
