- 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
re: Kagan issues scathing dissent in Texas redistricting case
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:34 pm to Jbird
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:34 pm to Jbird
Districts should represent the total, collective political orientation (R v D) of a State. If a State is 60% Red and 40% Blue, then the Representation should reflect that. Respective Districts could still reject any candidate that has abandoned their constituent's views.
Kagan is partisan Dem; she neither reflects Constitutional Principle or even basic fairness. She is a hack. Albeit 'fairness' may be subjective.
Kagan is partisan Dem; she neither reflects Constitutional Principle or even basic fairness. She is a hack. Albeit 'fairness' may be subjective.
0
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:37 pm to Tigersforthee
quote:
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.
This is why they talk about throwing the Constitution down the drain and "Expanding the Court" as soon as they can manage to do so.
I actually try to like Kagan, because she's a couple notches above Sotomayor and a million miles above the other one, but she went full-out Leftist here.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:38 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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.
Versus deference to a democratically elected legislative body?
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:42 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Versus deference to a democratically elected legislative body?
Yes!
This post was edited on 12/5/25 at 12:45 pm
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:46 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
It is almost as if you did not bother to READ
She said the court is supposed to give significant deference to the district court but the district court is supposed to give even more significant deference to the legislature and be very very careful about interference with an election right before the election. The district court here did not do that and went out of its way to make shite up to say that a gerrymander that was obviously done for political reasons was actually being done for racial reasons. Which was just false and unproven.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:48 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
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.”
In other words, the Supreme Court isn't Supreme.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:48 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
Do California
(D)ifferent
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:54 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You left this out:
quote:
“And today’s order disserves the millions of Texans whom the District Court found were assigned to their new districts based on their race.”
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:55 pm to Jbird
So the Texas map is allowed to go through?..
What a fricking L to SFP and the Ds
What a fricking L to SFP and the Ds
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:56 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
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.
However she disented in the overturning of Roe v Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson). She didn't care about the Mississippi judge's opinion on that one.
However she disented in the overturning of Roe v Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson). She didn't care about the Mississippi judge's opinion on that one.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 12:57 pm to MFn GIMP
quote:On matters of law, it IS.
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.”quote:
In other words, the Supreme Court isn't Supreme.
On matters of fact (such as evaluating the credibility of witnesses), it is NOT. Why? Because the appellate court was not THERE, to see/hear the witnesses and to do that evaluation.
This is not a "Left vs Right" question. It has been the case in Anglo-American jurisprudence for centuries.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:00 pm to TigerIron
quote:Please read the dissent.
She said the court is supposed to give significant deference to the district court but the district court is supposed to give even more significant deference to the legislature and be very very careful about interference with an election right before the election. The district court here did not do that and went out of its way to make shite up to say that a gerrymander that was obviously done for political reasons was actually being done for racial reasons. Which was just false and unproven.
Kagan quotes legislators SPECIFICALLY STATING racial motives (such as creating safe Latino districts, versus Dem Districts).
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:01 pm to TB026787
quote:
Women should not be o. The SC
Profound ignorance and bigotry on display.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:01 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
douchebag.............. 
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:05 pm to SDVTiger
SFP never said that. He's Sorry For all of the Problems due to his miscommunication.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:05 pm to hogcard1964
quote:You are out of your depth.
she disented in the overturning of Roe v Wade (Dobbs v. Jackson). She didn't care about the Mississippi judge's opinion on that one.
Dobbs was decided as a matter of law, not fact. As such, the question of deference to the factual findings of the District Court did not arise.
Dobbs was decided on full briefing and hearing, rather than as an interim matter over the weekend.
Those are just two of the many reasons that the procedural history of Dobbs is not remotely relevant here.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:05 pm to Jbird
Dems hoped Cons would never do what they do so they could claim the moral high ground. The moral high ground will get you extincted.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:11 pm to SlayTime
quote:
Dems hoped Cons would never do what they do so they could claim the moral high ground. The moral high ground will get you extincted.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:14 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Kagan is nothing more than a paid shill of the left. Look at the way she votes. How is it possible that someone like yourself, if you claim to have “strong libertarian leanings”, how can you respect Kagan in any way? The only thing that separates her from those other two judges you mentioned is she can actually form a coherent sentence.
District court judges are so overwhelmingly left wing that the SC has to check them factually. In many cases, its the only thing that keeps our liberties intact.
District court judges are so overwhelmingly left wing that the SC has to check them factually. In many cases, its the only thing that keeps our liberties intact.
Posted on 12/5/25 at 1:18 pm to Tigersforthee
quote:
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.
And, frankly, Kagan is the best of the 3. By far.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News