politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So to recap:
AL: "Look these maps are totally fine"
SCOTUS: "Nope, redraw them"
AL: "You're the last person I thought would say that, but alright fine. We've made adjustments to comply."
Another court: "No you didn't, you just changed proportions in a way that's unlikely to have any effect"
AL: "Nah it's totally fine!"
Another court: "No it's not. An independent entity will draw the maps since you racist fucks are incapable"
AL: "That is unfair, these maps are fine! Tell them, SCOTUS!"
SCOTUS: "Nope we're not getting involved. The maps are still bad."
...
Seriously though I'm confused why the Court is being... agreeable.
"You're the last person I thought would say that" 😂😂😂
That's not funny. That's sad.
Sometimes you have to choose between laughing and crying 😒
Fair enough. I do frequently have to laugh so I don't cry.
They have enough bad press as it is. Don't want another reason for Congress to start regulating their bribes.
I think here going to try and make their own code of ethics first. That's the impression I get from Kagan and Kavanaugh commenting. It should be interesting to see if the highest court in the land tries weasel words.
The point of the federalist society isn't to just smash and grab power overtly everywhere all at once. They know they can still get the legislative results they want with Alabama having a second black district.
So they aren't going to waste political capital on it.
With the margins that in the House currently it could very well change who holds the House, and accordingly the legislative results.