Supreme Court is probably gonna hand the House permanently to the GOP, today.

[Swede]

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act. declaring that "today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield."

But over the last 12 years, the increasingly conservative Supreme Court has hollowed out that law, leaving only one major provision standing. Now that provision is in danger of being struck down, too.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act aims to ensure that minority voters are not shut out of the process of drawing new congressional districts. When the law was passed in 1965 there were just six African-American, four Hispanic and two Asian or Pacific Islander members of the House of Representatives. None of the identified representatives were from the Deep South.

https://www.npr.org/2025/10/15/nx-s1-5573329/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-louisiana

[Lovie777]

1. Isn't oral argument today?.................

[herding cats]

12. Yes.

The actual ruling will be later. I assume around January.

Timing aside, I do agree it's not going to go well for us.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. If they gut section 2, it could result in flipping as many as 19 seats to the GOP

Minus 5 if CA Prop 50 passes, for a net gain of 14 seats for the GOP.

That definitely tilts the playing field, but it still might not be enough.

Right now, Dems are projected to flip 20-30 seats in 2026.

In 2018, they flipped 40.

In 2026, the US will likely be in recession, with double digit inflation and millions without healthcare or with premiums that have doubled- those conditions didn’t exist in 2018.

Despite all the ratfucking and chicanery, it’s important to remember:

Trump is not omnipotent, and the states and the people are not powerless

[Vogon_Glory]

3. I hope otherwise

But the effects of such a decision would last for decades. I fear that I won’t live to see it undone (I’m 70).

This is on the Republicans. This is also on the heads of the ill-informed and lazy progressive or moderate voters who stayed home when their votes were really needed.

I’m a Baby Boomer. Some of the blame can be heaped on my age cohort. But more of it can be heaped on the irresponsible and lazy Gen-X, Millenials, and Gen X voters who allowed this to happen. I don’t envy them when their children and grandchildren confront them and ask them “Why didn’t you stop them?”.

They’ll have decades of squinting ahead of them and IMO, it serves them right.

[underpants]

4. Horrible. The majority (white people) can't be a protected class can they?

Also looks like part if this is simply to protect Moses Mike.

Louisiana's Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga replied that the Supreme Court has long said that partisan gerrymandering is permissible, but racial gerrymandering is not. And here, he said, the motivation was explicitly partisan. The lines, he said, were drawn to create a second minority district and to protect three key Republican incumbents in the House, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Pressed further, a frustrated Aguiñaga replied: " It's an election year. We're talking about the speaker of the House. No rational state gambles with those high stakes in that situation."

[Baitball Blogger]

5. What I find incredibly stupid about us, is that what the Republicans can do in red states,

we can do in Democratic ones.

So, if we lose, it's because our political leaders are too stupid to move their pieces with the changing rules.

[Kid Berwyn]

6. John Roberts is a traitor.

Some citizen journalism, seeing how the rich don't like people to talk about their sundry treason to protect their property cough money:

The Robber’s Court: How the Supreme Court Betrayed America

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/4/12/2316071/-The-Robber-s-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Betrayed-America

[Mz Pip]

7. So, it's okay

to redraw districts favoring White people, though.

[Jspur]

8. Is the Supreme Court going to make the

decision today regarding this case?

[Igel]

9. Oral arguments.

It's not current practice to declare an end to the oral arguments and then take a roll-call vote of the membership to decide a case. Hasn't been for ... Uh ... Ever?

So the short answer is, "No, no decision today."

[Jspur]

11. There is no reason for you to

be snarky. I'm not a legal expert so I was asking simple question in which you could have just said no.

[Jack Valentino]

13. I think the snarkiness may have been intended for the author of the OP...

[UTUSN]

10. This RE-hearing of last term's kicking-can-down-road smacks of preemptive

softening the shock when they overturn an accepted concept the way they did Roe Wade.

So: * Will the decision be held up until June '26?

And: * if it is, won't that be too late for the regressive states to redraw the districts for the midterms?