- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Kagan issues scathing dissent in Texas redistricting case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:59 am
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:59 am
quote:
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Thursday warned in her dissenting opinion that the Supreme Court’s approval of Texas’s congressional map could violate voters’ rights enshrined in the Constitution.
In her dissent with fellow liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan wrote that the high court intervened “based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”
quote:
“Today’s order disrespects the work of a District Court that did everything one could ask to carry out its charge — that put aside every consideration except getting the issue before it right,” Kagan wrote. “And today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”
Kagan added that Texas claimed there was no racial gerrymander to its redrawn congressional map. But, she wrote, “Texas of course does not contend that the pursuit of partisan advancement itself a compelling interest. (It is not.)”
quote:
“We know better, the majority declares today,” Kagan wrote toward the end of her dissent. “I cannot think of a reason why.”
quote:
Conservative justices disagreed with the Kagan dissent, with Justice Samuel Alito noting Kagan did not dispute that Texas shared the same impetus as California to redraw its congressional maps out of “partisan advantage pure and simple.”
quote:LINK
The majority opinion claimed the panel of federal judges that previously decided on the case “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”
20
Posted on 12/5/25 at 11:59 am to Jbird
Do California.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:00 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Do California.
First, then Illinois and Massachusetts.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:01 pm to Jbird
Just remember that it would only take two more of these types of jurists to destroy 250 years of legal precedent and strip away every right we've enjoyed over that time.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:02 pm to Tigersforthee
quote:They would do it with the quickness.
Just remember that it would only take two more of these types of jurists to destroy 250 years of legal precedent and strip away every right we've enjoyed over that time.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:03 pm to Jbird
Of course she does but California is good.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:03 pm to Jbird
Everything I don't agree with is racist.
-Justice Kagan
-Justice Kagan
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:07 pm to Jbird
quote:
”based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”
Perusal means you looked at something in great detail. Surely the Justice knows that.
So what’s the issue?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:13 pm to Jbird
I disagree with her politics, but Kagan is one of the brighter representatives of the Left to have served on the Court in recent history. Grouping her with the Wise Latina and Jackson is entirely unfair to her.
Her point, if you actually read the dissent, is that the case below was VERY fact intensive and that SCOTUS (as an appellate court rather than a fact finder) owes a certain level of deference to the District Judge who heard the case and made the factual determinations.
As such, she felt that SCOTUS should not have discarded the work of the District Judge without giving the parties time for a full briefing and a full hearing, rather than granting interim relief without either.
The competing concern (obviously) is the upcoming statutory timelines related to 2026 elections.
Her point, if you actually read the dissent, is that the case below was VERY fact intensive and that SCOTUS (as an appellate court rather than a fact finder) owes a certain level of deference to the District Judge who heard the case and made the factual determinations.
As such, she felt that SCOTUS should not have discarded the work of the District Judge without giving the parties time for a full briefing and a full hearing, rather than granting interim relief without either.
The competing concern (obviously) is the upcoming statutory timelines related to 2026 elections.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 12:19 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:15 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Not saying much.
I disagree with her politics, but Kagan is one of the brighter representatives of the Left to have served on the Court in recent history.
quote:yep.
The competing concern (obviously) is the upcoming statutory timelines related to 2026 elections.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:18 pm to Jbird
Women should not be o. The SC
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:18 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Do California.
The day I hear her call the blue state gerrymandering illegal is the day I’ll consider her premise as anything other than a political convenience.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:19 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
"but Kagan is one of the brighter representatives of the Left to have served on the Court in recent history"
she's certainly benefitted from the bell curve effect of KBJ.
she's certainly benefitted from the bell curve effect of KBJ.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:19 pm to Jbird
She is setting up the big one coming with the Racial Disticting.
If I understand if correctly it will be up to 14 seats to the R's.
If I understand if correctly it will be up to 14 seats to the R's.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:21 pm to Jbird
What Kagan fails to address is how redistricting to favor every race but white is OK.
White privilege my arse.
White privilege my arse.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:22 pm to Jbird
Dissents carry no legal weight and cannot be used for a precedent right? So it’s basically just 3 liberal women bitching?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:23 pm to WeeWee
quote:Correct.
Dissents carry no legal weight and cannot be used for a precedent right? So it’s basically just 3 liberal women bitching?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:24 pm to Jbird
quote:
Dissents carry no legal weight and cannot be used for a precedent right? So it’s basically just 3 liberal women bitching? Correct.
Good let the hens cluck away.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:28 pm to TrueTiger
quote:It is almost as if you did not bother to READ the dissent.
Everything I don't agree with is racist. -Justice Kagan
quote:There is nothing groundbreaking (or even "liberal") in those views.
This Court owes, though today has not given, “significant deference” to the District Court’s marshaling and weighing of so much evidence. Cooper, 581 U. S., at 293. You would never guess it from the majority’s order, but under this Court’s precedents, a district court’s factfinding about electoral districting—“most notably, as to whether racial considerations predominated in drawing district lines”—is reversible “only for clear error.” Ibid.; see Alexander, 602 U. S., at 18 (describing that test as “demanding”). Under that standard, “we may not reverse just because we would have decided the matter differently.” Cooper, 581 U. S., at 293. If a district court’s factual determination is “‘plausible’ in light of the full record—even if another is equally or more so”—that determination “must govern.” Ibid. (quoting Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 574 (1985)). And in deciding what is thus “plausible, "we must “give singular deference to a trial court’s judgment about the credibility of witnesses.” Cooper, 581 U. S., at 309. The district court has conducted the hearing and knows the whole record. It is better positioned than this Court to decide what evidence to credit about the drawing of district lines.
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:31 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Lol
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News