Active Users:521 Time:08/11/2026 11:11:32 AM
Here's the opinion itself Legolas Send a noteboard - 10/02/2022 08:51:27 AM

See link. Basic facts of the case are the following, think this is a pretty neutral description:

  • The Republican majority in Alabama drew new voting districts for Congress, as is happening in all states. Of the seven districts, one is majority Black. Based on the proportion of Black people in the state and its history of racial discrimination towards them, especially in voting rights, many people are arguing there should be two majority Black districts - but the Republicans drew the maps in such a way as to limit it to one, as obviously Democrats would be favoured to win in majority Black districts.

  • So they sued. The District Court overturned the new map and ordered the Alabama legislature to redo it. Alabama appealed to the SC, asking also that until the SC can hear the case in full, the District Court's decision be put on hold - in other words, considering the timeline of a full SC case, that the 2022 election would go ahead with the map as it stands, with any potential changes ordered by the courts to apply only for subsequent elections.

  • As you see in the opinion, the conservative majority is agreeing to the stay, so to hold the 2022 election based on this map. The liberal three are objecting to the stay and making clear they'd support the District Court's opinion also in the full case. Roberts is withholding judgement on the merits of the full case, but also wants to deny the stay and let the DC's order to redo the maps before the 2022 election stand.

Supremecourt.gov
Reply to message
Judicial activism - 09/02/2022 09:33:40 PM 1087 Views
Can you reference - 09/02/2022 09:38:55 PM 805 Views
Agrees with Jeo *NM* - 09/02/2022 09:44:46 PM 422 Views
Here - 09/02/2022 11:27:15 PM 768 Views
So I can't read it - 09/02/2022 11:52:04 PM 759 Views
Here's the opinion itself - 10/02/2022 08:51:27 AM 859 Views
I don't understand that.. - 12/02/2022 06:53:06 PM 738 Views
we actually agree on this - 12/02/2022 07:04:56 PM 731 Views
Not just in 2022, though - 12/02/2022 07:10:48 PM 746 Views
Having grown up watching Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley I concur with your point. - 12/02/2022 07:46:26 PM 763 Views
Yep *NM* - 12/02/2022 08:03:19 PM 419 Views
well I feel stupid - 10/02/2022 04:08:10 AM 764 Views
You're referring to an entirely different case... see my reply to Jeo for the details on this one. - 10/02/2022 09:03:40 AM 779 Views
Oops - 10/02/2022 03:32:33 PM 748 Views
Purpose achieved! I win again! *NM* - 12/02/2022 06:54:36 PM 404 Views
So what's your point about activism? - 11/02/2022 10:54:21 AM 788 Views
Hilarious that *you* would be whining about judicial activism. Shameless. *NM* - 12/02/2022 06:06:12 PM 422 Views
I have no issue with judicial activism, dolt. - 12/02/2022 07:06:49 PM 766 Views
Not your best analogy. - 12/02/2022 08:47:04 PM 749 Views
Actually, I consider it one of my best analogies. - 12/02/2022 09:19:40 PM 700 Views
you've made better - 12/02/2022 10:23:39 PM 741 Views
I dunno - 12/02/2022 10:34:57 PM 724 Views
why do you think this is an example of judicial activism? - 14/02/2022 09:01:40 PM 997 Views
I like how you don't even attempt to have a reasonable discussion - 16/02/2022 03:01:57 PM 744 Views
This amused me. *NM* - 16/02/2022 03:36:31 PM 411 Views
As it should - 16/02/2022 05:43:28 PM 773 Views
I'm sure you do - 16/02/2022 04:21:09 PM 706 Views
Your point is to troll - 16/02/2022 05:41:26 PM 758 Views
I'm truly devastated... - 17/02/2022 06:00:01 AM 725 Views
Will this continue? - 17/02/2022 04:07:11 PM 719 Views
No - 17/02/2022 07:11:12 PM 792 Views
Popcorn is always required! - 18/02/2022 03:14:01 PM 775 Views
Nobody ever offers to do a grilling, it is always popcorn. - 18/02/2022 06:51:17 PM 709 Views
One does not have a rational discussion if something is fundamentally "perverse" - 17/02/2022 12:21:32 AM 760 Views
I'm glad you can't resist me - 17/02/2022 07:09:43 PM 724 Views
Are you doing “well” in this dread of Winter? - 17/02/2022 08:05:04 PM 735 Views
Re: Judicial activism - 19/05/2022 11:16:24 PM 909 Views
He just doesn't understand what judicial activism means. - 20/05/2022 03:55:24 PM 707 Views

Reply to Message