this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
195 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29618 readers
2351 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Thanks to today's Supreme Court Decision:

In states with large Black populations that remain under Republican control—half of the Black American population resides in the South—lawmakers will now be able to draw districts that dilute Black residents’ voting power. In his opinion for the right-wing majority, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired.” The Court’s decision is consonant with the philosophy, articulated by Kilpatrick in his earlier days, that the state is oppressive when it interferes with the right to discriminate, and respects liberty when it allows discrimination. And the decision fits just as well with Kilpatrick’s later spin on that philosophy: Attempts to ban racial discrimination are themselves discriminatory—against white people.

top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 76 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Racial discrimination being outlawed is a form of discrimination? Excuse me. Did I just read that correctly?

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yep. The opinion is ±the loop icon in music players.

[–] hopesdead@startrek.website 29 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Mumbles to himself: This is the fucking stupidest timeline.

Do not attribute to stupidity what should be attributed to malice.

[–] sturmblast@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Literally what neonazis have been crying about for years

[–] AbsolutelyNotAVelociraptor@piefed.social 34 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Just to be clear, this is what they are saying:

Attempts to ban racial discrimination are themselves discriminatory—against white people.

So... quick question: if I want to kill black people because I'm a racist... Does this mean a law saying I can't kill people (no matter their skin color) is discriminatory and should be changed because it's not letting me kill black people?

Or does it mean that they are changing the consideration of a person so a black person is not anymore a person?

Wow...

[–] 0tan0d@lemmy.world 9 points 3 days ago

it depends on how much money they have.

“in considering the constitutionality of a districting scheme, courts must treat partisan advantage like any other race-neutral aim: a constitutionally permissible criterion that States may rely on as desired.”

Translation, if districting is done purely to disenfranchise voters of the opposition party, that's just fucking aces. By the extension of that logic, what's to stop them from creating laws that prevent the opposition party from being on the ballot? Or make a law that says you can vote for anyone you want a long as they're Republican. Is that not "race-neutral" "partisan advantage" that would thus be "constitutionally permissible"?

[–] bookmeat@fedinsfw.app 12 points 3 days ago

Looks like they're writing legal opinions with copilot now.