Active Users:3559 Time:22/01/2025 05:42:21 PM
Here's the opinion itself Legolas Send a noteboard - 10/02/2022 08:51:27 AM

See link. Basic facts of the case are the following, think this is a pretty neutral description:

  • The Republican majority in Alabama drew new voting districts for Congress, as is happening in all states. Of the seven districts, one is majority Black. Based on the proportion of Black people in the state and its history of racial discrimination towards them, especially in voting rights, many people are arguing there should be two majority Black districts - but the Republicans drew the maps in such a way as to limit it to one, as obviously Democrats would be favoured to win in majority Black districts.

  • So they sued. The District Court overturned the new map and ordered the Alabama legislature to redo it. Alabama appealed to the SC, asking also that until the SC can hear the case in full, the District Court's decision be put on hold - in other words, considering the timeline of a full SC case, that the 2022 election would go ahead with the map as it stands, with any potential changes ordered by the courts to apply only for subsequent elections.

  • As you see in the opinion, the conservative majority is agreeing to the stay, so to hold the 2022 election based on this map. The liberal three are objecting to the stay and making clear they'd support the District Court's opinion also in the full case. Roberts is withholding judgement on the merits of the full case, but also wants to deny the stay and let the DC's order to redo the maps before the 2022 election stand.

Supremecourt.gov
Reply to message
Judicial activism - 09/02/2022 09:33:40 PM 624 Views
Can you reference - 09/02/2022 09:38:55 PM 328 Views
Agrees with Jeo *NM* - 09/02/2022 09:44:46 PM 148 Views
Here - 09/02/2022 11:27:15 PM 308 Views
So I can't read it - 09/02/2022 11:52:04 PM 292 Views
Here's the opinion itself - 10/02/2022 08:51:27 AM 349 Views
I don't understand that.. - 12/02/2022 06:53:06 PM 258 Views
we actually agree on this - 12/02/2022 07:04:56 PM 272 Views
Not just in 2022, though - 12/02/2022 07:10:48 PM 268 Views
Having grown up watching Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley I concur with your point. - 12/02/2022 07:46:26 PM 267 Views
Yep *NM* - 12/02/2022 08:03:19 PM 144 Views
well I feel stupid - 10/02/2022 04:08:10 AM 275 Views
You're referring to an entirely different case... see my reply to Jeo for the details on this one. - 10/02/2022 09:03:40 AM 250 Views
Oops - 10/02/2022 03:32:33 PM 285 Views
Purpose achieved! I win again! *NM* - 12/02/2022 06:54:36 PM 139 Views
So what's your point about activism? - 11/02/2022 10:54:21 AM 308 Views
Hilarious that *you* would be whining about judicial activism. Shameless. *NM* - 12/02/2022 06:06:12 PM 150 Views
I have no issue with judicial activism, dolt. - 12/02/2022 07:06:49 PM 280 Views
Not your best analogy. - 12/02/2022 08:47:04 PM 262 Views
Actually, I consider it one of my best analogies. - 12/02/2022 09:19:40 PM 253 Views
you've made better - 12/02/2022 10:23:39 PM 275 Views
I dunno - 12/02/2022 10:34:57 PM 262 Views
why do you think this is an example of judicial activism? - 14/02/2022 09:01:40 PM 345 Views
I like how you don't even attempt to have a reasonable discussion - 16/02/2022 03:01:57 PM 287 Views
This amused me. *NM* - 16/02/2022 03:36:31 PM 143 Views
As it should - 16/02/2022 05:43:28 PM 249 Views
I'm sure you do - 16/02/2022 04:21:09 PM 267 Views
Your point is to troll - 16/02/2022 05:41:26 PM 283 Views
I'm truly devastated... - 17/02/2022 06:00:01 AM 265 Views
Will this continue? - 17/02/2022 04:07:11 PM 271 Views
No - 17/02/2022 07:11:12 PM 266 Views
Popcorn is always required! - 18/02/2022 03:14:01 PM 291 Views
Nobody ever offers to do a grilling, it is always popcorn. - 18/02/2022 06:51:17 PM 249 Views
One does not have a rational discussion if something is fundamentally "perverse" - 17/02/2022 12:21:32 AM 288 Views
I'm glad you can't resist me - 17/02/2022 07:09:43 PM 251 Views
Are you doing “well” in this dread of Winter? - 17/02/2022 08:05:04 PM 273 Views
Re: Judicial activism - 19/05/2022 11:16:24 PM 291 Views
He just doesn't understand what judicial activism means. - 20/05/2022 03:55:24 PM 240 Views

Reply to Message