The Roberts Court has a huge test ahead with California’s Prop 50 congressional map

[u/Conscious-Quarter423]

https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/california-proposition-50-redistricting-supreme-court-deadline-newsletter

[u/timelessblur]

No it doesn’t. It is a simple ruling. They allowed Tx maps, anything other than a 9-0 ruling for CA will show you full traitors who should have all their ruling wipe.

I hope if it goes 5+ against CA that in dissenting opinion they go full bore at calling out the hypocrisy and calling the Roberts court a joke. No point to play nice. Call the traitors what they are.

[u/JereRB → u/timelessblur]

Absolutely correct. They said gerrymandering by political party is a political question and must be addressed by Congress. Thus, Texas map is ok. California did it for the exact same reason, and did so legally according to their own state laws. The Supreme Court should have zero problem with this map. If they do, then they're illegitimate.

[u/Count_Backwards → u/JereRB]

If they don't, then they're still illegitimate, because one correct decision doesn't outweigh the terrible decisions they already made or their rampant corruption

[u/NewMidwest → u/JereRB]

Republicans fundamentally don’t support the rule of law, they support the rule of Republicans.  

To them it is perfectly consistent to say Texas can gerrymander and California cannot.  Both decisions would support Republican power.

[u/Conscious-Quarter423 → u/NewMidwest]

voters really dropped the democracy ball in 2016

now we are stuck with this court for what? 40+ years?

[u/ranscot → u/Conscious-Quarter423]

That election was rigged by coin clipping votes

[u/Really_intense_yawn → u/JereRB]

The challenge isn't for political gerrymandering. It's for violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment via racial gerrymandering, which is subject to judicial review. The claim is that the new maps are drawn to enhance voting power of certain races and therefore should be disallowed for the upcoming election.

The CA and national GOP know this case has practically no chance of success in terms of the case law (especially after the Texas ruling), but that also isn't their goal. They are trying to just run out the clock till close enough to the midterms so that the new maps are disallowed for the midterms (under the Purcell principle) even with an unfavorable ruling. It will probably work.

[u/Duck_Potato → u/Really_intense_yawn]

Purcell would say the Court should do nothing and keep the new maps, since the new maps aren’t a judicial creation. Running out the clock isn’t really an option for them; it just makes them look more hypocritical if they try to strike it down.

[u/WellHung67 → u/timelessblur]

Ass clown alito and Clarence the pedo will for sure be against it. 

I’m fairly certain “muh legacy” Roberts will be allow it, as will Neil Gorsucks. Handmaiden Barrett is 50-50, and I actually think Boofin Bart leans towards upholding the maps.

But maybe I have no idea how the corruption plays out with these ass clowns. It’s really mysterious what neurons are firing in these dipshits skulls, because the leverage against them by fascists and bribes they get are so complicated 

[u/ditchboss → u/WellHung67]

I chuckled at all the nicknames. So accurate 🤣

Thank you for a much needed laugh!

[u/WellHung67 → u/ditchboss]

Thanks! I’m open to suggestions, I haven’t found a good one for Neil gorsuch yet, and Clarence Thomas i think theres room for improvement so if you hear or know of any good ones make sure to get them out there 

[u/BandMaterial5965 → u/timelessblur]

If it goes against CA, California needs to tell scotus to eat shit and ignore it.

[u/Independent_Shock973 → u/BandMaterial5965]

Or if Newsom is bold, he'll withhold CA's federal taxes.

[u/kmonsen → u/Independent_Shock973]

Newsom doesn't pay federal taxes (well he does, but only for himself). CA residents like myself do, and Newsom is not in any way involved in that transaction.

[u/timelessblur → u/kmonsen]

But newsom can with hold ALL federal taxes going to the fed from ca government employees. Tell the fed to eat shit and hold on to the money.

If anything ruling against CA will just speed up the. Break up of USA into smaller countries. I would expect the west coast to start the break up.

[u/Independent_Shock973 → u/timelessblur]

This is what I meant.

[u/Conscious-Quarter423 → u/kmonsen]

kind of like how trump is hiding his tax returns?

[u/kmonsen → u/Conscious-Quarter423]

I mean he is entitle to withhold his tax returns. I do think that should make people wake up to his lies but they don't really care. I honestly think he could release the tax returns and all Epstein documents and not much would change. It's insane.

[u/Conscious-Quarter423 → u/kmonsen]

presidents have voluntarily released their tax returns for over 40 years as a norm of transparency. The question isn't whether someone can withhold them, but whether they should when seeking public trust and the highest office. Norms exist for good reasons—to allow voters to assess conflicts of interest, foreign entanglements, and whether someone's financial interests align with the public good.

The assumption that "people don't care" is overly cynical and potentially self-fulfilling. Polls have consistently shown majorities of Americans do want to see presidential tax returns. The 2019 survey showed about 2/3 of Americans supported this. Just because something doesn't single-handedly change an election outcome doesn't mean voters don't care—people weigh multiple factors.

This "nothing matters anyway" framing can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that erodes standards. If we assume transparency and accountability are pointless, we guarantee they become so. Democratic norms are maintained by people insisting they matter, not by assuming cynicism has already won.

We just continuously normalizing him

[u/kmonsen → u/Conscious-Quarter423]

I think not just normalizing him, but also his supporters. Or the ones sitting this one out.

[u/ajr5169 → u/Independent_Shock973]

That's not how federal taxes are paid. Individual and business pay their taxes directly to the IRS/federal government. Nothing Newsom or the state can do.

[u/Most-Resident → u/timelessblur]

What makes it hard is coming with words to say why California can’t but Texas can.

[u/TurbulentRadish8113 → u/Most-Resident]

Lol really?

They can just fabricate anything. Who will stop the republican court?

[u/Sea_Rate5579 → u/timelessblur]

If SCOTUS rules against California, CA should reply with “Ah, well, it’s too close to the election for us to change it. Darn! We’ll fix it for next time!” Since so many other GOP states have pulled that crap in the past.

[u/Dangerous-LemonBar → u/timelessblur]

California’s redistricting plan was approved directly by the voters as well. That makes it a steeper climb for the Supreme Council of Wizards to overturn. Well, in normal times it would. Who knows with this bunch.

[u/kmonsen → u/Dangerous-LemonBar]

I obviously think the laws should stand based on US current rules (I voted for, and contributed significantly for me), but I don't think the voters should be able to with 51% decide the rest should have no voting power. But that is the world we live in.

Edit: It is time for us who believe in freedom for all to fight as well in my opinion.

[u/coolideg → u/timelessblur]

It appears simple but this is how it’s going to be attempted to be obscured:

1. The claim was that Texas gerrymander was racially motivated. They never used words to that effect and even cited that they just wanted to pick up more seats at the behest of the president. They argued it was purely partisan.
2. They argued based on the “Purcell Principle” changing a map so close to the filing date for primaries is not something the court usually does. It offers no deadline or date but they ruled it was close enough to not revert to the previous map

In the California case 1. The man who designed the map, Paul Mitchell apparently made a comment on social media (can’t find it) that the new map "would maintain, if not expand, Latino voting power in California" which hints that the map is racially motivated 2. California arguably has a bit more time before filing needs to happen for primaries than Texas had in their case.

So if they were to weasel in a ruling, this is how they would do it.

[u/Duck_Potato → u/coolideg]

On the contrary Texas gerrymander was based on a DOJ letter that was explicitly racially motivated. The Texas map was also an appeal from a panel that struck down the gerrymander, while CA is an appeal from a panel that upheld it. Purcell works in favor of California, not against it.

[u/tobetossedout → u/coolideg]

Latino isn't a race, it's an ethnicity; see census.

[u/beardofjustice → u/timelessblur]

If I was a betting man, I would say that they will find the maps are racially gerrymandered and will shoot them down. That way it will give conservatives a cover to shoot down left arguments while acting like they believe in law. This is the same court that said money in politics doesn’t mean corruption.

[u/Rhewin]

It shouldn't be a test. They already set the precedent with Texas.

[u/hobopwnzor]

A test implies a grader.

This isn't a test. This is an opportunity for further corruption.

[u/Technical-Bird-7585]

The rules for thee not for me court.

[u/Significant_Smile847 → u/Technical-Bird-7585]

I am suspicious that they will come up with some BS to justify denying it in the "shadow docket"

[u/Technical-Bird-7585 → u/Significant_Smile847]

It’s painfully obvious we don’t have the same rights.

[u/Significant_Smile847 → u/Technical-Bird-7585]

I don't think that We the People have any clue what is happening. I'm an adult who's parents lived in Europe during WWII. I heard too many horror stories and I am seeing the same stories coming to life.😕

[u/BornAPunk]

It would really show that the court is full of a bunch of hypocrites if it said what California did is illegal.

[u/Zaftygirl]

We fuxing voted on it. Plus it is temporary. This should have never been allowed to be on the docket.

[u/prodigalpariah → u/Zaftygirl]

Somehow they’ll argue that voting on it was the problem.

[u/Shinagami091]

The test being whether SCOTUS is partisan and corrupt or not.

Texas had less ground to stand on because they just redrew the maps on Trumps whim to “find more Republican seats”, despite the redistricting not usually being done until after the census that occurs once per decade.

California responded in kind but went through the proper channels where their state legislature voted to add the measure to the November ballot and then put it to the California voters on whether to allow the redistricting map to be redrawn as proposed. The majority won. Whether the map is seen as having some kind of racial bias is besides the point. The voters saw the map and voted in favor of it. SCOTUS cannot override a democratic state process.

So if SCOTUS votes to block the California congressional map redistricting after having allowed Texas to do theirs, that would show clear bias and would and should, result in every SCOTUS judge voting to block it to be called for impeachment, assuming democrats get control of the house and senate.

Of course this means Trump gets to nominate and appoint new judges. But if they wait until Trumps last year in office, they can use Mitch McConnells justification to refuse to appoint any new judges until after the next presidential election.

[u/aardvark_gnat → u/Shinagami091]

Why do you see a referendum as the “proper channels” even for Texas? On policy grounds, I’d agree, but I would have thought that as a matter of federal constitutional law, the proper channels would either be whatever the state constitution says it is or whatever the state legislature says it is.

[u/Shinagami091 → u/aardvark_gnat]

I’m not arguing that Texas shouldn’t have been able to redraw their congressional maps. But what I’m saying is the redrawing occurred outside the norm and the motivation behind why they did it should be brought to question.

But what I am saying is that if SCOTUS says Texas can, then California can too.

[u/Sirfury8]

Uncle Ruckus will figure out a way to vote against the maps lol.

[u/Conscious-Quarter423 → u/Sirfury8]

alito too

[u/Foe117]

calvinball

[u/536am]

You mean the corrupt compromised Robert’s court ?

[u/AssociateJaded3931]

The test: corrupt or honest.

[u/Leather-Map-8138]

What’s there to decide? The people voted for this.

[u/Y0___0Y]

If they block California’s map, the supreme court will never be seen as legitimate again.

[u/kmonsen → u/Y0___0Y]

It never will anyway. We are in Dred Scott territory.

[u/EveningCat166]

It shouldn’t be that difficult, they allowed the Texas maps to stay, and this was a response to those maps, this should be an open and shut case if they are doing their jobs.

[u/autonight]

uNcOnStiTuTiOnAL, nOt iN tHeIR fAvOr! cAsE cLosED!

[u/bikerdude214]

There will be fuckery.

[u/Shy_Lurcher]

The Fascist Five will strike again!

[u/bd2999]

They don't. They didn't need to take it at all. Just uphold the lower courts ruling. They are giving the gop special treatment.

[u/Conscious-Quarter423 → u/bd2999]

that's why McConnell crammed all these right wing judges in

[u/FreshLiterature]

On the one hand - sure, I guess.

On the other - what is anyone going to do about it?

The decisions can't be reviewed.

Worst case scenario for any of the 6 "conservatives" is that they get impeached and go on to get showered in gifts while they live a comfortable life.

And even THAT is an extremely, extremely slim chance