Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
SCOTUS' conservative majority makes a surprise decision
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="essentialsaltes" data-source="post: 77372860" data-attributes="member: 294566"><p>So Alabama has asked the Supremes to intervene again.</p><h3><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/12/alabama-supreme-court-congressional-maps/" target="_blank">Alabama asks Supreme Court to revisit congressional districting map case</a></h3><p></p><p>I wonder if SCOTUS regrets striking down the preclearance rules in the Voting Rights Act that covered states like Alabama and others with a history of racial discrimination in voting. Who could have foreseen that those same states with a history of racial discrimination would immediately start drawing unconstitutional maps on racial lines and <a href="https://www.christianforums.com/threads/voter-purge-frenzy-after-federal-protections-lifted-new-report-says.8074444/" target="_blank">purging voter rolls</a>? Anyway, all these lawsuits must be causing them extra paperwork, and who needs that?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="essentialsaltes, post: 77372860, member: 294566"] So Alabama has asked the Supremes to intervene again. [HEADING=2][URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/09/12/alabama-supreme-court-congressional-maps/']Alabama asks Supreme Court to revisit congressional districting map case[/URL][/HEADING] I wonder if SCOTUS regrets striking down the preclearance rules in the Voting Rights Act that covered states like Alabama and others with a history of racial discrimination in voting. Who could have foreseen that those same states with a history of racial discrimination would immediately start drawing unconstitutional maps on racial lines and [URL='https://www.christianforums.com/threads/voter-purge-frenzy-after-federal-protections-lifted-new-report-says.8074444/']purging voter rolls[/URL]? Anyway, all these lawsuits must be causing them extra paperwork, and who needs that? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
SCOTUS' conservative majority makes a surprise decision
Top
Bottom