30
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
30 points (100.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8863 readers
165 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you honestly think they lacked the justification already?
Do you not remember this is a response to Texas gerrymandering all on their own?
Please explain what you mean
If it's right, it's right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. It doesn't matter what color state and for what political shift it is trying to achieve.
This is not the first time California (and other states before Texas) have redistricted. Sadly it probably won't be the last.
But it's an erroneous stance to say it's okay because hey other guy did it.
No the reason it’s ok is because it helps stop actual deranged fascists from gaining further control
Your principles are a luxury borne of false notions and propaganda
I'm prone to think that one group having rights and another group not having them solely based on who they are is more of a fascist belief than the opposite view.
But I'm not here to argue with you, I was just trying to give a perspective because you asked for an explanation.
The Supreme Court is authorizing it because they want the Texas gerrymandering to be legit, and pave the way for all the red states to do it.
Gerrymandering is legal in America already you just can’t do it by race
The Supreme Court confirmed Texas and California didn’t do it by race it has nothing to do with whether or not other red states can gerrymander
You could always gerrymander you just can’t do it by race
Exactly, and the Supreme Court could have stopped that in its decision, but it didn’t, because it served the conservative party’s ends.
Stopped it how?
There’s no constitutional or federal law against gerrymandering except you can’t do it by race…
States have to make gerrymandering illegal at the state level which many have otherwise it’s only illegal if you gerrymandered by race
If you think the Supreme Court needs a specific law to rule on something, you’ve sadly ignored much history of Supreme Court decisions. A large percentage of their work is handwavey opinions based on biased interpretations of obscure and irrelevant documents.
Yes, it’s supposed to work the way you described it, but it hasn’t for some time now.
Ok but we don’t like the Supreme Court decisions that are made up and not based in law or logic
They also obviously couldn’t have given who sits on it
What you’re really asking for is a united progressive Democratic Party that passes actual legislation ensuring fair elections