Nice discussion, Adam. It’s good to remind ourselves that liberal democracy is meant to accommodate decision making by human beings who do not always agree on things, even pretty fundamental things. Most issues are not existential. Fair elections come close, but within election law there is room to disagree in this semi-principled way that you have described so aptly.
1. If this was really a close call and not driven by partisan ideology the probability that all six Republican Justices would vote the way they did is highly questionable.
2. The Court has basically given unrestricted rights for Republican to dilute Black voters. Just call all Black voters Democrats and do whatever you want with them. Maybe states like South Carolina will reach their ultimate goal now, no Democratic Representatives or state legislators. Thank you Supremes.
Maybe instead you might be devastated by this. Just saying.
"The Goon Squad came to national attention last year after Rankin County sheriff’s deputies tortured two Black men in their home and shot one of them in the face, nearly killing him. Six officers, including three from the Goon Squad shift, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to federal prison in March." - NYT 5/29/24
Yea I write comments in substack very quickly on my phone so the comments are sometimes ungrammatical.
And look at the breakdown of yearly black-white interracial violent crime.
Blacks are offenders in 80-90% of cases depending on the year. The statistical exceptions (like the one you cited below) often become national news stories
There is a lot of detail here which clearly is under consideration in the courts, that focuses on lawyerly arguments with some attention to past decisions that seem to disregard our overriding foundational documents and intent.
We know that our nation was founded by white well off men of property, without women, people of color, nor indigenous people included in our government and rights. However, their founding documents were aspirational. With statements like “we the people”, the door was open for the all Americans to one day pass through to equal rights. It almost seems that lawyers have developed their technical approach to these documents and subsequent amendments and laws to prevent the aspirations from getting out of hand for the more privileged which might be the “conservative” side. Whereas, the “liberal” side looks for technical support for advancing rights where the founding and subsequent documents aren’t sufficiently specific. A problem with all laws and legal structures. How can you ever cover everything?
But going back to the “aspirational” and the written words, no where that I know of was “political party” and “partisan” mentioned. So how does any court or legal authority justify the privilege of a political party to operate government and create voting districts, rules, times, places or anything else to favor their party. All of this is the foundation for authoritarianism and the creation of another king? In my view, districting for partisan purposes is unconstitutional on its face. Based on race, this is discrimination by race. Based on party, this is discrimination by political party which is a higher level of discrimination that clearly discards our most foundational principles of democracy.
This is why there was preclearance. This dilution would not have passed muster under the Voting Rights Act had it not been gutted by this Court.
You cannot view this case in the vacuum of the state of the law currently. I believe you need to view the historical context of how and why the current state came to exist and why. The actions of the South Carolina legislature had a discriminatory impact by diluting Black voters of their voting power.
In a two party system, where one party better represents a minority that had traditionally faced state sponsored discrimination, diluting the group’s voting power will always have a partisan impact. That the legislature did not view the actual votes, but rather used race as the predictor would seem to be prima facie evidence of discriminatory intent.
The Roberts Court has always exhibited racial animus in the majority of decisions where race is an issue, especially as regards voting rights.
“In a two party system, where one party better represents a minority that had traditionally faced state sponsored discrimination, diluting the group’s voting power will always have a partisan impact.”
We live in an increasingly multiethnic democracy now. Blacks have been lavished and favired by the state and major cultural institutions for decades. The goverment spending on blacks to remediate their current outcomes—erroneously blamed on history or discrimination rather than more immutable factors—is truly historically unprecedented.
Given this post-1960s history, the fact that blacks are now a lavished class, and the increasing multiethnic nature of america, extreme judicial solicitude of black interests is wholly unwarranted
The NYT just reported this on a potential house sale in Virginia Beach.
"Two weeks later, with the home sale in escrow and on the same day of a home inspection, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Gamble made the three-hour drive to Virginia Beach to see the house in person for the first time. Ms. Walker arrived as the couple was leaving, and Ms. Walker’s agent, Susan Pender of Berkshire Hathaway RW Towne Realty, introduced the seller to the buyer.
Shortly after Dr. Baxter and Dr. Gamble drove away from the home, Ms. Walker informed her agent that she was not willing to sell to her home to a person who is Black and she wished to cancel the sale, according to a chronology of events compiled by Mr. Miller and shared with The New York Times by Dr. Baxter. "
Were this case to go to the Supreme Court, anyone who doubts the decision would not be 6 to 3 or 5 to 4 in favor of the Racist is a good candidate to buy the bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I am selling. Their reasoning might well be that the Seller was against selling to a Democrat and just using race to identify the political affiliation of the Buyer. The thinking: A seller has the right to not sell to a Democrat. All Black people are Democrats. Therefore the seller can refuse to sell to a Black person. QED.
I have tremendous admiration for Mr. Unikowsky's idealism in his belief that the Supreme Court Republican appointed Justices act on legal principles, but based on their record reality is tragically something else.
Here’s a template that I find generally useful: GOP-appointed justices are generally hostile to VRA claims and Dem appointees are generally receptive. Their views are not necessarily a product of their partisan leanings; rather, they are selected by partisans because of their known or predicted views.
It seems that the court decided that entities can't notice race if the result is to benefit blacks. But entities can notice race if it harms blacks, as long as the entity lies about its motives. Does that mean elite colleges can accept a lot of low-income applicants as a way to capture a bunch of black applicants?
Nice discussion, Adam. It’s good to remind ourselves that liberal democracy is meant to accommodate decision making by human beings who do not always agree on things, even pretty fundamental things. Most issues are not existential. Fair elections come close, but within election law there is room to disagree in this semi-principled way that you have described so aptly.
Two points:
1. If this was really a close call and not driven by partisan ideology the probability that all six Republican Justices would vote the way they did is highly questionable.
2. The Court has basically given unrestricted rights for Republican to dilute Black voters. Just call all Black voters Democrats and do whatever you want with them. Maybe states like South Carolina will reach their ultimate goal now, no Democratic Representatives or state legislators. Thank you Supremes.
Maybe instead you might be devastated by this. Just saying.
"The Goon Squad came to national attention last year after Rankin County sheriff’s deputies tortured two Black men in their home and shot one of them in the face, nearly killing him. Six officers, including three from the Goon Squad shift, pleaded guilty and were sentenced to federal prison in March." - NYT 5/29/24
Yea I write comments in substack very quickly on my phone so the comments are sometimes ungrammatical.
And look at the breakdown of yearly black-white interracial violent crime.
Blacks are offenders in 80-90% of cases depending on the year. The statistical exceptions (like the one you cited below) often become national news stories
There is a lot of detail here which clearly is under consideration in the courts, that focuses on lawyerly arguments with some attention to past decisions that seem to disregard our overriding foundational documents and intent.
We know that our nation was founded by white well off men of property, without women, people of color, nor indigenous people included in our government and rights. However, their founding documents were aspirational. With statements like “we the people”, the door was open for the all Americans to one day pass through to equal rights. It almost seems that lawyers have developed their technical approach to these documents and subsequent amendments and laws to prevent the aspirations from getting out of hand for the more privileged which might be the “conservative” side. Whereas, the “liberal” side looks for technical support for advancing rights where the founding and subsequent documents aren’t sufficiently specific. A problem with all laws and legal structures. How can you ever cover everything?
But going back to the “aspirational” and the written words, no where that I know of was “political party” and “partisan” mentioned. So how does any court or legal authority justify the privilege of a political party to operate government and create voting districts, rules, times, places or anything else to favor their party. All of this is the foundation for authoritarianism and the creation of another king? In my view, districting for partisan purposes is unconstitutional on its face. Based on race, this is discrimination by race. Based on party, this is discrimination by political party which is a higher level of discrimination that clearly discards our most foundational principles of democracy.
This is why there was preclearance. This dilution would not have passed muster under the Voting Rights Act had it not been gutted by this Court.
You cannot view this case in the vacuum of the state of the law currently. I believe you need to view the historical context of how and why the current state came to exist and why. The actions of the South Carolina legislature had a discriminatory impact by diluting Black voters of their voting power.
In a two party system, where one party better represents a minority that had traditionally faced state sponsored discrimination, diluting the group’s voting power will always have a partisan impact. That the legislature did not view the actual votes, but rather used race as the predictor would seem to be prima facie evidence of discriminatory intent.
The Roberts Court has always exhibited racial animus in the majority of decisions where race is an issue, especially as regards voting rights.
“In a two party system, where one party better represents a minority that had traditionally faced state sponsored discrimination, diluting the group’s voting power will always have a partisan impact.”
We live in an increasingly multiethnic democracy now. Blacks have been lavished and favired by the state and major cultural institutions for decades. The goverment spending on blacks to remediate their current outcomes—erroneously blamed on history or discrimination rather than more immutable factors—is truly historically unprecedented.
Given this post-1960s history, the fact that blacks are now a lavished class, and the increasing multiethnic nature of america, extreme judicial solicitude of black interests is wholly unwarranted
Come for insightful legal analysis, stay for poorly reasoned racism in the comments section. The Internet is a wonderful place.
Poorly reasoned how? You likely think shrill accusations of racism are a persuasive form of argument
> As I began studying this decision, I decided to look up the Justices’ biographies on Wikipedia, and I noticed a weird coincidence.
Ok this gave me a good laugh, thanks
The NYT just reported this on a potential house sale in Virginia Beach.
"Two weeks later, with the home sale in escrow and on the same day of a home inspection, Dr. Baxter and Dr. Gamble made the three-hour drive to Virginia Beach to see the house in person for the first time. Ms. Walker arrived as the couple was leaving, and Ms. Walker’s agent, Susan Pender of Berkshire Hathaway RW Towne Realty, introduced the seller to the buyer.
Shortly after Dr. Baxter and Dr. Gamble drove away from the home, Ms. Walker informed her agent that she was not willing to sell to her home to a person who is Black and she wished to cancel the sale, according to a chronology of events compiled by Mr. Miller and shared with The New York Times by Dr. Baxter. "
Were this case to go to the Supreme Court, anyone who doubts the decision would not be 6 to 3 or 5 to 4 in favor of the Racist is a good candidate to buy the bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn I am selling. Their reasoning might well be that the Seller was against selling to a Democrat and just using race to identify the political affiliation of the Buyer. The thinking: A seller has the right to not sell to a Democrat. All Black people are Democrats. Therefore the seller can refuse to sell to a Black person. QED.
I have tremendous admiration for Mr. Unikowsky's idealism in his belief that the Supreme Court Republican appointed Justices act on legal principles, but based on their record reality is tragically something else.
Here’s a template that I find generally useful: GOP-appointed justices are generally hostile to VRA claims and Dem appointees are generally receptive. Their views are not necessarily a product of their partisan leanings; rather, they are selected by partisans because of their known or predicted views.
It seems that the court decided that entities can't notice race if the result is to benefit blacks. But entities can notice race if it harms blacks, as long as the entity lies about its motives. Does that mean elite colleges can accept a lot of low-income applicants as a way to capture a bunch of black applicants?