http://ace.mu.nu/archives/416900.php Back in the 80s, if I remember right, left-wing extremists began demanding that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be read to require explicitly race-based gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts. These majority-minority districts just so happened to be Democrat-supermajority districts, and this imposition was placed on the states of the old Confederacy, which just so happen to be Republican states. Left-wing judges agreed with this idea, naturally, and began demanding that red states gerrymander their congressional districts to always guarantee Democrats of 3-4 bonus seats that they would never, ever have in a normal partisan gerrymander. While the blue states worked relentlessly to eliminate all Republican-leaning districts, or to pack all Republicans into just one or two districts to make sure every other district was Democrat-majority, Republicans have been forced by left-wing judges to always carve out special Democrats-Only districts. The state of Louisiana just carved out not one but two strangely-shaped districts to make two seats that only Democrats (specifically, black Democrats) could win. Louisiana citizens sued, claiming -- correctly -- that these districts were drawn on racist grounds and therefore were a violation of the Constitution.
have a couple of gift links left this month. This is a good read The Debate Dividing the Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices Outnumbered and facing vast stakes, Justices Kagan and Jackson are split over the best approach: investing in diplomacy inside the court or sounding the alarm outside. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/...e_code=1.xk8.blfx.dGMmElHyYhWY&smid=url-share
if only the article that you have parroted would provide the name of the extremists, at least the leader of the pack. that article did not provide that info because doing so would not fit that preconceived convenient narrative
This is suppose to be the LEAST political arm of the Government but that is obviously not the case In fact it maybe the most political Rocket River Impartial my ***
In a recent ruling against Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Illinois, Kavanaugh clarified his September 7th statement that race “may be used as a factor” when assessing reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. The examples he cited illustrate his reasoning. Those earlier opinions from him had been called the “Kavanaugh stops,” with legal experts arguing they enabled ICE to stop people based on race. His clarification specifies that ICE stops cannot be based on race or ethnicity. Legal expert slams Supreme Court Justice for attempt to 'narrow the forces he unleashed' - Raw Story In a ruling in September that stayed a lower court block on certain kinds of immigration raids in California, Kavanaugh authored a concurrence in which he appeared to endorse profiling by federal agents outright, while simultaneously denying that American citizens have anything to fear from this. "The Government sometimes makes brief investigative stops to check the immigration status of those who gather in locations where people are hired for day jobs; who work or appear to work in jobs such as construction, landscaping, agriculture, or car washes that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English," he wrote. This ruling sparked a wave of outrage, and several legal and political observers began calling immigration enforcement based on racial or ethnic profiling "Kavanaugh stops," and tallying up the growing number of alleged incidents of this type occurring under the Trump administration. All of this may have stung the justice, because he appeared to qualify or walk back this sentiment in his concurrence in the Illinois case. "The basic constitutional rules governing that dispute are longstanding and clear: The Fourth Amendment requires that immigration stops must be based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence, stops must be brief, arrests must be based on probable cause, and officers must not employ excessive force," wrote Kavanaugh. "Moreover, the officers must not make interior immigration stops or arrests based on race or ethnicity." This change of tone was not lost on New York University law professor and former Defense Department special counsel Ryan Goodman. "Kavanaugh goes out of his way to pen a footnote not having to deal with the case at hand," Goodman wrote on X. "He appears to be trying to narrow the forces he unleashed with his prior opinion allowing for race- and ethnicity-based #KavanaughStops."
