I agree with the sentiment, but do we really want the courts to be able to mandate the legislator pass certain legislation under the threat of arrest? Having a special master redraw the maps I think is the proper way of handling it.
Allowing them to stall for years, is bullshit, though.
Again, this goes back to my question of how the SCOTUS can make their rulings stick. What can they do? You can't arrest and entire legislature. Maybe just the Speaker or Majority Leader or whatever that position is called in each state. What kind of uproar would that cause?
Maybe impose financial sanctions? Freeze Federal funding? Who would that hurt? Most likely the public, contractors, state employees and so on. What would that accomplish? Make the public mad at the state or the Feds?
And what happens when a SCOTUS ruling is just flat out wrong like CU or Hobby Lobby and a state rightfully doesn't want to accept it?
They are enforcing it by forcing a new map.No, we want to the courts to mandate compliance with established Constitutional law under threat of arrest. In short, legislatures shouldn't be allowed to thumb their nose at the law and disenfranchise voters simply because they are racist pieces of shit. If they do, there should be consequences. Should judges enforce that? Absolutely.
They are enforcing it by forcing a new map.
Forcing the legislative branch to pass things under the threat of arrest puts the courts well over the legislator.
What if the supreme court bans abortion and then they ordered the arrest of any state legislator that didn't immediately vote for a full abortion ban.
Federal troops were sent in to allow black students to enter school when the Governer was attempting to stop desegregation. Why isn't that good now? What you are also saying is if Alabama manages to stall until after the 2024 election we just let that slide. What we are all saying is the civil rights of black citizens in that state doesn't matter.They are enforcing it by forcing a new map.
Forcing the legislative branch to pass things under the threat of arrest puts the courts well over the legislator.
What if the supreme court bans abortion and then they ordered the arrest of any state legislator that didn't immediately vote for a full abortion ban.
Like I predicted, the stall continues. Where is all this law and order fervor? What happens to ordinary citizens who flout court decisions?
Alabama Attorney General to Appeal Redistricting Decision to Supreme Court
A panel of judges on Tuesday rejected a map drafted by the state Legislature that did not contain a Black-opportunity districtthemessenger.com
It's one thing to charge individuals with Contempt of Court (or Congress like a certain MAGAt recently found out). How do you charge an entire state?
I would think the next step would be to refuse to sit their reps in congress. But probably easier to start fining the state by withholding funds.Got that part, my question was regarding what happens after certain Alabamians again acted on their intent to disenfranchise voters? Has this kind of belligerence in Alabama become tradition because nothing ever comes of it? New maps don't seem to be punitive enough to change behavior it would seem.
What if one state continuing to flip off the Voting Rights Act leads to others deciding to do the exact same kind of thing from here on out? 5 or 6 states with GQP controlled legislatures suddenly decide racial discrimination is perfectly fine and things will get unpleasant I imagine.
I am not saying that.Federal troops were sent in to allow black students to enter school when the Governer was attempting to stop desegregation. Why isn't that good now? What you are also saying is if Alabama manages to stall until after the 2024 election we just let that slide. What we are all saying is the civil rights of black citizens in that state doesn't matter.
Arkansas troops block "Little Rock Nine" from entering segregated high school | September 4, 1957 | HISTORY
Arkansas governor Orval Faubus enlists the National Guard to prevent nine African American students from entering Central High School in Little Rock. The armed Arkansas militia troops surrounded the school while an angry crowd of some 400 whites jeered, booed, and threatened to lynch the...www.history.com
It's one thing to charge individuals with Contempt of Court (or Congress like a certain MAGAt recently found out). How do you charge an entire state?
You have to be careful not to do anything to plant the seed of secession.
There is nothing to vote on. SCOTUS has given the order. I say send in troops to enforce like they did for civil rights violations in the 50s and 60s. Are you saying troops should NOT have been sent in then?I am not saying that.
Are you saying we should send in the army and force the legislators to vote a certain way? Feels pretty 1932 Germany to me. The whole "Too close to the election" BS needs to stop, there should be an immediate removal of the ill-gotten seat.
The real problem is maps drawn by politicains, that is what needs to end.
In Arkansas the Governer send in state troops to stop black students from entering schools in defiance of an order from SCOTUS in Brown v Board of Ed. President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce the court's ruling. This case is VERY similar.Johnson sent troops to protect children going to school because he felt the state guard under Wallace could not be trusted (or something like that).
Johnson also sent the 82nd and 101st Airborne to Detroit to quell riots
There are no children going to school here and so far there are no riots.
Troops were protecting children from violence not forcing school boards to vote a certain way. Pretty big difference in the facts and potential consequences.There is nothing to vote on. SCOTUS has given the order. I say send in troops to enforce like they did for civil rights violations in the 50s and 60s. Are you saying troops should NOT have been sent in then?
Did the troops arrest the governor or protect the children? What you are asking for is extremely different.In Arkansas the Governer send in state troops to stop black students from entering schools in defiance of an order from SCOTUS in Brown v Board of Ed. President Eisenhower sent in federal troops to enforce the court's ruling. This case is VERY similar.
I want to see the same kind of fight for voting rights by this government.