Alabama Republicans refuse to draw a second Black congressional district in defiance of Supreme Court

[brycejones]

States have rights too.

They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.

So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.

 

[m8d]

It's so insane that in America Politicians pick their voters.

I assume a federal court can force a map on the state of the state refuses to comply, right?

The two greatest frauds in the world are AmeriKKKa and religion.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

This is a question I've asked a few times in the past and never really got a solid answer to.

How much power does SCOTUS really have to back up their rulings? So far, Alabama as a state has essentially refused to comply. What if they continue to do so? Is there a Contempt of Court option? It isn't like the entire state legislature can be arrested and jailed. Sanctions? Courts take over the district maps?

 

[mikeymikec]

This is a dangerous game for conservatives to play and one they probably don’t want to. If Alabama can ignore SCOTUS rulings so can Biden.

You mean, back in the days when conservatives were worried about setting precedents?

 

[FelixDeCat]

They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.

So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.

You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?

So you can go fuck right off with telling states what to do. 😀

 

[brycejones]

You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?

So you can go fuck right off with telling states what to do. 😀

Look who doesn’t understand the constitution and federalism.

Dumb ass

 

[FelixDeCat]

You mean, back in the days when conservatives were worried about setting precedents?

I don't agree with AL, I'm just making a point that they can make their own rules.

Just look at all the states that allow potheads to run amock with 'legal' weed despite federal drag laws.

 

[HomerJS]

You are the racist and also cookoo as well. If AL is happy with what they have, who are you to say otherwise?

So you can go fuck right off with telling states what to do. 😀

How dare anyone question Alabama's right to disenfranchise their black citizens.

I suggest you take off your white hood and read the 65 Voting Rights Act.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't agree with AL, I'm just making a point that they can make their own rules.

Just look at all the states that allow potheads to run amock with 'legal' weed despite federal drag laws.

This is actually a good example - the feds are free to come arrest them for any federal laws they have broken and the state cannot stop them because of the supremacy clause. Similarly, states cannot make election laws that violate federal election laws or the Constitution.

So no, Alabama can only make its own rules so far as they comply with federal law. They didn't do that here.

 

[brycejones]

amock

The word you're looking for is amuck.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Isn't it amok?



And how about the question I asked above?

 

[brycejones]

Isn't it amok?



And how about the question I asked above?

When things go amuck, they are wildly out of control. Someone running amuck is showing no self-control. This is a word that has to do with chaos and disorder. A riot is an example of people running amuck. In a cafeteria, if people are yelling and throwing food, they are going amuck.

 

[HomerJS]

Isn't it amok?



And how about the question I asked above?

Maybe

 

[FelixDeCat]

This is actually a good example - the feds are free to come arrest them for any federal laws they have broken and the state cannot stop them because of the supremacy clause. Similarly, states cannot make election laws that violate federal election laws or the Constitution.

So no, Alabama can only make its own rules so far as they comply with federal law. They didn't do that here.

So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?

 

[Fenixgoon]

So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?

You could try, but you'd also have to show standing first. I think that would be a fairly substantial legal hurdle.

It is also still a federal crime in those states, even if it is no longer a state crime

 

[fskimospy]

So if I sue the states that are letting potheads turn everything to shit in their states and the SC agrees with me, then those states will need to outlaw pot again and throw the druggies in the hoosegow?

No, that would make no sense and would violate the Constitution.

The federal government cannot force states to make something illegal. What it CAN do is invalidate state laws that violate either federal law or the Constitution. States choosing to make pot possession not a state crime are not violating any federal law but racial gerrymanders are.

 

[fskimospy]

You could try, but you'd also have to show standing first. I think that would be a fairly substantial legal hurdle.

It is also still a federal crime in those states, even if it is no longer a state crime

You couldn't no matter what. It's a separation of powers issue and the federal government has no control as to what actions a state deems criminal. It can provide incentives for states to make certain things criminal but it can't force them. A state also couldn't prevent the feds from coming in and arresting someone who was breaking federal law.

 

[hal2kilo]

You couldn't no matter what. It's a separation of powers issue and the federal government has no control as to what actions a state deems criminal. It can provide incentives for states to make certain things criminal but it can't force them. A state also couldn't prevent the feds from coming in and arresting someone who was breaking federal law.

Withholding federal highway maintenance funds for states that did not enact 21 year old minimum liquor requirements would be a perfect example.

 

[APU_Fusion]

They don't have the right to violate their citizens rights under the constitution.

So yeah, you can just fuck right off with that states rights shit in regards to this case. Fucking racist POS.

Lord, he is a clueless numbnut

 

[fskimospy]

What’s also weird here is how self evidently bad it is for one party in a democracy to essentially use the law to give itself a permanent legislative majority. (See Wisconsin).

Do citizens of a democracy really need to be told why it’s bad if only one party could ever win.

@FelixDeCat to put it in clearer terms for you we can only imagine how high the debt and deficit would be if only republicans were in office. Considering their sky high debt history it would probably be triple what it is now.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Lord, he is a clueless numbnut

Pshaw, Bryce isn't *that* stupit.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Withholding federal highway maintenance funds for states that did not enact 21 year old minimum liquor requirements would be a perfect example.

That was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.

 

[brycejones]

Pshaw, Bryce isn't *that* stupit.

Oh poor Felix, bless your heart, I know you're doing your best.

 

[fskimospy]

That was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.

They are allowed. Didn’t you read my post?

 

[Fenixgoon]

That was the most outrageous thing ever. If states want to allow 18 yos to gather for an ale like they do in Europe and Mexico, they should be allowed.

States are perfectly welcome to reject federal highway funds and have a lower drinking age