Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, nearly 50-page dissent about why the Supreme Court should have gutted voting rights

[aubiefifty 18,259]

Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, nearly 50-page dissent about why the Supreme Court should have gutted voting rights

Kelly McLaughlin

~3 minutes

---

 

Associate US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas poses for the official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on October 7, 2022.Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

 

• Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Thursday's 5-4 ruling on Allen v. Milligan.

• He wrote a nearly-50-page dissent about his disagreement with the ruling.

• Thursday's ruling found that Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act's ban on racial gerrymandering.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, 48-page dissent in the court's ruling that Alabama violated a ban on racial gerrymandering.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday, holding a lower federal court's decision that Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act with congressional districts that discriminate against Black voters in the state by largely clumping them together into one district.

The surprise ruling prevented the court from gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, joined the Supreme Court's liberal-leaning justices in the ruling.

Thomas was one of four conservative justices who opposed Thursday's ruling.

In his dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that the court's decision has turned Section 2 — the part of the Voting Rights Act used bans gerrymandering based on race — into "nothing more than a racial entitlement to roughly proportional control of elective offices —limited only by feasibility — wherever different racial groups consistently prefer different candidates."

Thomas said the Voting Rights Act doesn't require Alabama "intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State's population."

"If it did, the Constitution would not permit it," he wrote.

More dramatically, Thomas said he would have ruled that the Voting Rights Act had no power at all to prevent state legislators from racially gerrymandering districts — grouping minority votes along racial lines to dilute their power.

Thomas said he's "long been convinced" that the Voting Rights Act only regulates voters' ability to actually get to the ballot or cast it.

The gerrymandered maps were used in the 2022 election. Republicans won all six non-Black-majority congressional districts. The sole Black-majority district went to Democrats.

Alabama will now need to redraw its electoral maps.

Read the original article on Business Insider

[icanthearyou 4,468]

3 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

Thomas said he's "long been convinced" that the Voting Rights Act only regulates voters' ability to actually get to the ballot or cast it.

Right.  The intentions of civil rights legislation was to allow black people to vote BUT,,, allow white people to simply make those votes not count.   Brilliant.

Any ways they aint not racism aint never ben no racism in Alabama.

[aubiefifty 18,259]

6 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Right.  The intentions of civil rights legislation was to allow black people to vote BUT,,, allow white people to simply make those votes not count.   Brilliant.

Any ways they aint not racism aint never ben no racism in Alabama.

son of a tiger showed his behind on here about tubs and after the nation and even his own brother spoke out for being racist he has not apologized nor extended the convo because he is not man enough to admit when he is wrong.

Edited June 9, 2023 by aubiefifty

[homersapien 12,245]

Thomas is a good example of why "black self-hatred" is a "thing" (topic) in psychology.

[CoffeeTiger 5,883]

Don't be fooled, Kavanaugh and Roberts want the same things Clarence wants ( And all 3 want whatever the Federalist society tells them to want), it's just that Kavvy and Roberts know the courts legitimacy can't take many more hits right now and want cases where they can "slowly" erode small parts of the Civil rights acts in a case by case basis. 

Alabama was counting on them just destroying the whole thing all at once, but the Republican Supreme Court judges are a little bit more strategic than that. 

 

[SaltyTiger 8,579]

18 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

son of a tiger showed his behind on here about tubs and after the nation and even his own brother spoke out for being racist he has not apologized nor extended the convo because he is not man enough to admit when he is wrong.

Is the thread about you guys hate for Justice Thomas or @Son of A Tiger? Make your mind up Fiddy.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Is the thread about you guys hate for Justice Thomas or @Son of A Tiger? Make your mind up Fiddy.

It does not matter.  The decision, the dissent matter.  More than that, it is fair access AND, fair representation that matter. 

The idea of an independent court free from the bias of corruption matter.  Thomas made himself a target of anger with his obvious disregard for ethics.  The Federalist Society made itself a target by forcing the court to be politically active.  Put the blame where it belongs. 

[SaltyTiger 8,579]

Tweet

 

See new Tweets

 

Conversation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Katie Boyd Britt

 

@SenKatieBritt

 

It’s great to see my Democratic colleagues affirming the legitimacy of the Supreme Court today. Sounds like there are some new #Keep9 supporters!

 

 

11:50 AM · Jun 8, 2023

·

54.4K

Views