By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court reinstated Texas’s gerrymandered congressional map, reversing a lower court’s decision that found it racially discriminatory. The conservative justices cited the District Court’s failure to respect legislative good faith and its interference in an active primary campaign as justification. Justice Kagan, along with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, arguing the map disserves Texas voters by assigning them to districts based on race. This decision underscores the Roberts court’s pattern of weakening protections for minority voters and entrenching GOP political power, despite efforts by states like California to counter these effects.
Read the original article here
The Roberts court just helped Trump rig the midterms, and the situation is more than a little unsettling. It’s almost like the referees in the game are openly picking sides, handing out advantages to one team while hindering the other. This isn’t just about a few questionable calls; it feels like the very rules of the game are being rewritten. The actions of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, are starting to look like an exercise in political maneuvering, an attempt to tilt the scales in favor of a specific party.
The worry is that the court has become an extension of a particular political agenda. This perception is fueled by decisions that appear to favor one side over the other, creating the sense that the court is no longer impartial. The echoes of “rigged elections” are in the air, and it’s hard not to feel that the midterms could be impacted, possibly profoundly, by the court’s recent actions. One clear example of this is the court’s actions regarding redistricting in Texas. By allowing certain maps to stand, the court seems to be legitimizing practices that many believe unfairly manipulate the electoral process.
The crux of the concern lies in the very nature of democracy. If the system is rigged, then the voices of the people are silenced. This includes the possibility of voter suppression or gerrymandering, where districts are designed to favor one party or another. But gerrymandering has been ruled as legal by the SCOTUS. These actions undermine the trust of the electorate. It’s about a lack of faith in the integrity of the process, which is critical for a healthy democracy. Many are fearful that these decisions could backfire on the Republicans. However, the fear of an unfair playing field can lead to decreased voter turnout among those who feel like their votes don’t matter.
Despite the potential for voter suppression, there is also the fact that Trump’s support base is cratering. In the face of all of this, there’s a mix of frustration and resignation, with a sense that Democrats aren’t playing the same game. Some would say that the Democrats should be doing the same tactics as the Republicans, which is to say, gerrymandering themselves. This is due to the fact that gerrymandering is a consistent and legal tool that Republicans use. Democrats should follow this lead or accept that they do not wish to win.
The concern extends beyond just the midterms, to the integrity of the voting process itself. The decisions of the court could have implications for future elections, potentially shaping the political landscape for years to come. This means challenging the assumption that the courts are neutral arbiters of justice, and this is why people are saying that it may not matter and that the Democratic side may actually win.
The reality of how Trump’s court is acting might come to light. The court’s decisions may actually alienate independent and moderate voters and could cause some of those districts to flip to the Democrats. The hope is that the court’s actions will fail and the Trump agenda can be halted. If the midterms don’t go as the Republicans expect, the GOP will be fighting themselves and their policies will fall by the wayside. The Democrats must rally support for their cause, not fall into the doomsday predictions.
The core of the issue is that it feels like the scales of justice are not being held equally. The Roberts court has provided shortcuts for those trying to manipulate the system. Whether it is through decisions about redistricting or other areas, the feeling is that the court is failing to protect the fairness of the electoral process. The goal is to get people to vote and support the Democratic Party, and to not say things like the midterms are rigged.