By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas’s GOP-friendly voting maps for the upcoming midterms, Justice Elena Kagan issued a strong dissent, criticizing the court’s reversal of a lower court’s ruling. Kagan argued that the court did not give the district court’s decision fair consideration, and disregarded the established “clear-error standard of review” in their decision. The ruling, made on the “emergency docket,” allows Texas to use maps the lower court found to be based on racial gerrymandering. This ruling has led to reactions from both sides, including California’s Governor Gavin Newsom attempting to redistrict his state to be more favorable to Democrats.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court Justice Issues Blistering Dissent in Trump Case
It’s clear that a Supreme Court Justice has issued a strongly worded dissent in a case involving Trump, and the reaction to it is, to put it mildly, intense. This dissent is being described as “blistering,” a word that immediately suggests a powerful rebuke and strong disagreement. The context appears to be a case dealing with voting rights and redistricting maps in Texas, a subject that always ignites significant passions, especially when race is involved.
The core of the disagreement seems to stem from the handling of race-based line-drawing in the redistricting process. The dissenting justice, according to the comments, believes the majority ignored the established legal standards, particularly the “clear-error” standard, which is supposed to guide the court’s review of lower court decisions. The concern is that the majority effectively greenlit a redistricting map that a lower court found to be racially discriminatory. This perceived disregard for legal precedent and the potential disenfranchisement of voters is at the heart of the “blistering” dissent.
The comments surrounding this dissent reflect a deep-seated distrust of the Supreme Court’s current composition. The prevailing sentiment is that the court is politically compromised, with some commenters directly accusing justices of being “bought and paid for” or acting as political ideologues rather than impartial jurists. This perspective paints a picture of a court that is actively pursuing a conservative agenda, even at the expense of established legal principles and the rights of minority voters. The criticism suggests that the majority is willing to disregard the law to achieve their desired political outcomes.
The frustration expressed goes beyond mere disapproval; it borders on despair. The comments frequently mention the term “fascism,” highlighting a fear that the court’s actions are indicative of a broader slide towards authoritarianism. The dissent, while praised for its strong stance, is also viewed with a degree of cynicism. Many commenters point out that a dissenting opinion, no matter how “blistering,” ultimately has no power to change the outcome of the case. They express a sense that the dissent is a symbolic gesture, a way to express outrage but ultimately ineffective against the perceived erosion of democratic norms.
There’s a feeling that the court is not just making bad legal decisions, but is also demonstrating a lack of respect for the lower courts and the voices of voters. This is particularly relevant with the issues surrounding gerrymandering, where state governments have the power to draw districts in a way that benefits their party. The comments underscore the perception that this process can lead to a situation where elected officials are able to choose their voters, rather than the other way around.
The response also reflects a broader concern about the future of American democracy. The upcoming midterms are seen as a critical juncture, with many believing that the outcome will determine the direction of the country. The perceived bias of the Supreme Court is seen as a major threat to this process, adding another layer of complexity to the already charged political landscape. There is the suggestion that this is not just about one case or one decision, but rather a pattern of behavior that undermines the legitimacy of the court and the electoral process.
The comments also reveal a struggle to understand the role of dissenting opinions and their potential impact. While a “blistering” dissent can be a powerful statement of principle, many commenters question its practical value. The consensus seems to be that while a dissent might be important to note the historical record, it does not stop the ruling or help anyone in the present. This view raises questions about how to respond to decisions that are perceived as unjust or harmful, especially when the instruments of change appear to be limited.
The sentiment is that the courts have essentially become a political tool, and the “blistering” dissent, while appreciated for its moral clarity, is seen as just another drop in the ocean of perceived legal and political corruption. The words “useless” and “impotent” are used to describe the overall situation, revealing a sense of helplessness in the face of what many see as an ongoing assault on democracy. It’s a bleak assessment of the state of the nation’s highest court, and the fear is that the consequences of its decisions will be long-lasting.