The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#11,353
#11,353




Grok
@grok
21m
Race-based congressional district maps are electoral boundaries drawn primarily using racial demographics to create majority-minority districts, often to comply with the Voting Rights Act and boost minority representation. Critics argue this constitutes racial gerrymandering, violating equal protection. The Supreme Court is now considering banning race as a factor in redistricting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#11,354
#11,354
jmacvols1 said:




Grok
@grok
21m
Race-based congressional district maps are electoral boundaries drawn primarily using racial demographics to create majority-minority districts, often to comply with the Voting Rights Act and boost minority representation. Critics argue this constitutes racial gerrymandering, violating equal protection. The Supreme Court is now considering banning race as a factor in redistricting.
Click to expand...

Probably keep Texas from redrawing their maps to favor their current gerrymandering scheme
 
#11,355
#11,355
race based Congressional districts are basically giving Dems possibly 26 seats....maybe more considering minority Latino districts...

from GROK:
There’s no precise number of congressional seats held by Democrats explicitly due to race-based congressional districts, as the impact of redistricting and racial demographics on electoral outcomes is complex and not reducible to a single figure. However, I can provide context based on available data.

Majority-minority districts, where racial or ethnic minorities make up the majority of constituents, are often created to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which aims to prevent the dilution of minority voting power. These districts tend to favor Democrats, as minority voters, particularly African Americans and Latinos, lean heavily Democratic. According to data, there are 26 congressional districts where African Americans are the majority, all represented by Democrats, though two (Tennessee’s 9th and Michigan’s 13th) are held by non-African American Democrats. Additionally, two districts have Asian-American majorities, both represented by Democrats.

===================================

news.bloomberglaw.com

Supreme Court to Consider Outlawing Race-Based Voting Districts

The US Supreme Court indicated it will consider outlawing the use of race in drawing voting maps, setting up a blockbuster showdown with implications for dozens of congressional districts with predominantly minority populations.
news.bloomberglaw.com news.bloomberglaw.com
 
Last edited:
#11,356
#11,356
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term begins on October 6, 2025, and several significant cases are scheduled or expected to be heard during the fall session. Below is a summary of some of the major cases, based on available information, that are likely to draw attention due to their legal, social, or political implications:
  1. Transgender Rights Cases:
    • United States v. Skrmetti (reargument): This case involves challenges to Tennessee and Kentucky laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The Court heard arguments on December 4, 2024, in the previous term, but ordered supplemental briefing and a rehearing for the 2025-2026 term. The case examines whether these bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The conservative majority appeared inclined to uphold Tennessee’s law, with some justices framing it as an age-based restriction rather than sex-based discrimination, while others raised concerns about judicial overreach into legislative policy.




    • Idaho and West Virginia Transgender Athlete Bans: The Court will hear appeals from Idaho and West Virginia defending state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from participating in female sports teams at public schools. These cases stem from lower court rulings siding with transgender students and address civil rights and equal protection issues. No specific argument date has been set, but they are expected in the fall session.
  2. Religious Rights and Public Education:
    • Mahmoud v. Taylor: This case questions whether a Maryland school board’s refusal to allow parents to opt their elementary-age children out of classroom instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 22, 2025, from the prior term’s calendar, but may carry over into the fall session. The case has sparked debate over balancing parental religious rights with public school curriculum management.




    • Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin: The Court will decide whether Wisconsin’s denial of a tax exemption to a religious organization (Catholic Charities Bureau) for not meeting the state’s criteria for “typical” religious activity violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Oral arguments are set for April 21, 2025, but could extend into the fall if delayed. This case explores the boundaries of state authority over religious organizations.
  3. Campaign Finance and Free Speech:
    • Republican-led Challenge Involving JD Vance: The Court will hear a case challenging federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties, arguing that these restrictions violate the First Amendment’s free speech protections. The case involves Vice President JD Vance, who was a U.S. Senate candidate when the litigation began. No specific argument date is confirmed, but it is slated for the 2025-2026 term. This could reshape campaign finance regulations.


    • Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (decided June 27, 2025): Although decided in the prior term, this case’s implications may influence fall discussions. It addressed a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online content deemed obscene for children, ruling it subject to intermediate scrutiny due to its incidental effect on protected speech.
  • Capital Punishment:
    • Hamm v. Smith: This case involves Alabama’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of a 1997 murder, to be intellectually disabled, sparing him from the death penalty under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent banning the execution of intellectually disabled individuals. The case tests the application of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. No argument date is confirmed, but it is scheduled for the 2025-2026 term.


    • Glossip v. Oklahoma (decided in prior term): While already ruled on, this case’s focus on prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases may influence related fall arguments. The majority found prosecutors violated constitutional obligations by failing to correct false testimony, prompting broader debate on capital punishment fairness.
  • Environmental and Energy Litigation:
    • Chevron, Exxon Mobil, et al. v. Plaquemines and Cameron Parishes: Oil and gas companies are appealing to move lawsuits from Louisiana state courts to federal courts, arguing that the suits involve oil production tied to federal contracts during World War II. The case addresses jurisdictional issues and could impact how environmental lawsuits against energy companies are litigated. No argument date is set, but it is expected in the term.


    • Enbridge v. Michigan: The Court will hear Enbridge’s bid to change the venue of Michigan’s lawsuit seeking to shut down part of a pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac due to environmental concerns. This case also involves federal versus state court jurisdiction and is scheduled for the 2025-2026 term.
  • Voting Rights and Redistricting:
    • Louisiana v. Callais (reargument): This case involves a Louisiana electoral map increasing the number of Black-majority congressional districts. The Court heard arguments on March 24, 2025, but ordered a rehearing for the 2025-2026 term. The ruling could affect the scope of the Voting Rights Act and redistricting practices nationwide.
  • Conversion Therapy Ban:
    • A Christian therapist is challenging Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, arguing it violates free speech under the First Amendment. The case tests the balance between state regulations and free speech rights. No argument date is confirmed, but it is set for the term.
  • Emergency Docket Cases:
    • The Court has been addressing several emergency applications related to Trump administration actions, such as challenges to executive orders on birthright citizenship, deportation policies, and federal funding freezes. While some were handled in the prior term, new emergency requests may arise in the fall session, potentially shaping the Court’s workload. For example, a case involving Trump’s attempt to remove Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is under review
Notes:
  • The Court has agreed to hear at least 65 cases in the 2024-2025 term, with 50 scheduled for argument, and more are expected to be added for the 2025-2026 term.




  • Specific argument dates for some cases (e.g., Hamm v. Smith, Chevron v. Plaquemines) are not yet set, but they are confirmed for the 2025-2026 term, likely in the fall or early winter.


  • The Court’s docket is dynamic, and additional high-profile cases may be added as the term progresses, especially given the volume of emergency applications tied to executive actions.
These cases cover contentious issues like transgender rights, religious freedoms, free speech, capital punishment, and environmental law, making the 2025-2026 term significant for shaping legal precedents. For the latest updates, check the Supreme Court’s official website (www.supremecourt.gov) (www.supremecourt.gov) or SCOTUSblog (www.scotusblog.com) (www.scotusblog.com)
 
#11,358
#11,358
jmacvols1 said:
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025-2026 term begins on October 6, 2025, and several significant cases are scheduled or expected to be heard during the fall session. Below is a summary of some of the major cases, based on available information, that are likely to draw attention due to their legal, social, or political implications:
  1. Transgender Rights Cases:
    • United States v. Skrmetti (reargument): This case involves challenges to Tennessee and Kentucky laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. The Court heard arguments on December 4, 2024, in the previous term, but ordered supplemental briefing and a rehearing for the 2025-2026 term. The case examines whether these bans violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The conservative majority appeared inclined to uphold Tennessee’s law, with some justices framing it as an age-based restriction rather than sex-based discrimination, while others raised concerns about judicial overreach into legislative policy.




    • Idaho and West Virginia Transgender Athlete Bans: The Court will hear appeals from Idaho and West Virginia defending state laws that prohibit transgender athletes from participating in female sports teams at public schools. These cases stem from lower court rulings siding with transgender students and address civil rights and equal protection issues. No specific argument date has been set, but they are expected in the fall session.
  2. Religious Rights and Public Education:
    • Mahmoud v. Taylor: This case questions whether a Maryland school board’s refusal to allow parents to opt their elementary-age children out of classroom instruction involving LGBTQ+ themes violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 22, 2025, from the prior term’s calendar, but may carry over into the fall session. The case has sparked debate over balancing parental religious rights with public school curriculum management.




    • Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin: The Court will decide whether Wisconsin’s denial of a tax exemption to a religious organization (Catholic Charities Bureau) for not meeting the state’s criteria for “typical” religious activity violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Oral arguments are set for April 21, 2025, but could extend into the fall if delayed. This case explores the boundaries of state authority over religious organizations.
  3. Campaign Finance and Free Speech:
    • Republican-led Challenge Involving JD Vance: The Court will hear a case challenging federal limits on coordinated campaign spending by political parties, arguing that these restrictions violate the First Amendment’s free speech protections. The case involves Vice President JD Vance, who was a U.S. Senate candidate when the litigation began. No specific argument date is confirmed, but it is slated for the 2025-2026 term. This could reshape campaign finance regulations.


    • Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (decided June 27, 2025): Although decided in the prior term, this case’s implications may influence fall discussions. It addressed a Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online content deemed obscene for children, ruling it subject to intermediate scrutiny due to its incidental effect on protected speech.
  • Capital Punishment:
    • Hamm v. Smith: This case involves Alabama’s appeal of a lower court ruling that found Joseph Clifton Smith, convicted of a 1997 murder, to be intellectually disabled, sparing him from the death penalty under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent banning the execution of intellectually disabled individuals. The case tests the application of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. No argument date is confirmed, but it is scheduled for the 2025-2026 term.


    • Glossip v. Oklahoma (decided in prior term): While already ruled on, this case’s focus on prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases may influence related fall arguments. The majority found prosecutors violated constitutional obligations by failing to correct false testimony, prompting broader debate on capital punishment fairness.
  • Environmental and Energy Litigation:
    • Chevron, Exxon Mobil, et al. v. Plaquemines and Cameron Parishes: Oil and gas companies are appealing to move lawsuits from Louisiana state courts to federal courts, arguing that the suits involve oil production tied to federal contracts during World War II. The case addresses jurisdictional issues and could impact how environmental lawsuits against energy companies are litigated. No argument date is set, but it is expected in the term.


    • Enbridge v. Michigan: The Court will hear Enbridge’s bid to change the venue of Michigan’s lawsuit seeking to shut down part of a pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac due to environmental concerns. This case also involves federal versus state court jurisdiction and is scheduled for the 2025-2026 term.
  • Voting Rights and Redistricting:
    • Louisiana v. Callais (reargument): This case involves a Louisiana electoral map increasing the number of Black-majority congressional districts. The Court heard arguments on March 24, 2025, but ordered a rehearing for the 2025-2026 term. The ruling could affect the scope of the Voting Rights Act and redistricting practices nationwide.
  • Conversion Therapy Ban:
    • A Christian therapist is challenging Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, arguing it violates free speech under the First Amendment. The case tests the balance between state regulations and free speech rights. No argument date is confirmed, but it is set for the term.
  • Emergency Docket Cases:
    • The Court has been addressing several emergency applications related to Trump administration actions, such as challenges to executive orders on birthright citizenship, deportation policies, and federal funding freezes. While some were handled in the prior term, new emergency requests may arise in the fall session, potentially shaping the Court’s workload. For example, a case involving Trump’s attempt to remove Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission is under review
Notes:
  • The Court has agreed to hear at least 65 cases in the 2024-2025 term, with 50 scheduled for argument, and more are expected to be added for the 2025-2026 term.




  • Specific argument dates for some cases (e.g., Hamm v. Smith, Chevron v. Plaquemines) are not yet set, but they are confirmed for the 2025-2026 term, likely in the fall or early winter.


  • The Court’s docket is dynamic, and additional high-profile cases may be added as the term progresses, especially given the volume of emergency applications tied to executive actions.
These cases cover contentious issues like transgender rights, religious freedoms, free speech, capital punishment, and environmental law, making the 2025-2026 term significant for shaping legal precedents. For the latest updates, check the Supreme Court’s official website (www.supremecourt.gov) (www.supremecourt.gov) or SCOTUSblog (www.scotusblog.com) (www.scotusblog.com)
Click to expand...
I would put conversion therapy up there with any gender affirming care. forcing the kids to take on someone else's ideal for them should not be allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmacvols1
#11,360
#11,360
hog88 said:
So basic parenthood should be outlawed?
Click to expand...
if conversion therapy is your basis of parenthood, then yeah. and you are a ****** parent.

conversion therapy is the same crap as gender affirming care, they use drugs and hormones, inhumane behavior modification, extreme sleep deprivation, forced isolation and confinement. if there was a surgery they would use it. I know a couple victims of it, and it sounds as bad as any abuse story I have heard.
 
#11,361
#11,361
LouderVol said:
if conversion therapy is your basis of parenthood, then yeah. and you are a ****** parent.

conversion therapy is the same crap as gender affirming care, they use drugs and hormones, inhumane behavior modification, extreme sleep deprivation, forced isolation and confinement. if there was a surgery they would use it. I know a couple victims of it, and it sounds as bad as any abuse story I have heard.
Click to expand...

forcing the kids to take on someone else's ideal for them should not be allowed
Click to expand...

This is what you posted, it was a dumb statement. Parents force their ideals on their children daily, it's parenting.

Be more specific in your posts.
 
#11,362
#11,362
This discussion is where the kids/trans subject gets complicated. I believe in parental rights and all but I've decided that no, parents should not have the right to mutilate and sterilize their kids. The gov't needs to take that option off their plate. This is an example of where I take each issue on its own merits. I'm not ruled by ideology
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#11,363
#11,363
hog88 said:
This is what you posted, it was a dumb statement. Parents force their ideals on their children daily, it's parenting.

Be more specific in your posts.
Click to expand...
my parents never forced me into any of their thinking. I very much doubt you forced your kids on much of anything.

you are using "force" as if it means encouraged, mentored/coached, while rewarding good behavior. I don't. I chose my words carefully.

only parents I can think of that forced anything were crap parents who at the least bordered on abuse.
 
#11,364
#11,364
Sea Ray said:
This discussion is where the kids/trans subject gets complicated. I believe in parental rights and all but I've decided that no, parents should not have the right to mutilate and sterilize their kids. The gov't needs to take that option off their plate. This is an example of where I take each issue on its own merits. I'm not ruled by ideology
Click to expand...

100% agree. Nobody has the right to mutilate a child parent or not. I can't remember how many states it is but there are several that people under 18 can't get a tattoo even with parental consent.
 
#11,365
#11,365
LouderVol said:
my parents never forced me into any of their thinking. I very much doubt you forced your kids on much of anything.

you are using "force" as if it means encouraged, mentored/coached, while rewarding good behavior. I don't. I chose my words carefully.

only parents I can think of that forced anything were crap parents who at the least bordered on abuse.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
#11,367
#11,367
LouderVol said:
so how did you "force" your kids to be what they are now?
Click to expand...

I forced them to make their beds, do chores, do their school work, be home by curfew and speak politely and generally not be little pricks. Their mother made them go to church.
 
#11,368
#11,368
hog88 said:
I forced them to make their beds, do chores, do their school work, be home by curfew and speak politely and generally not be little pricks. Their mother made them go to church.
Click to expand...
lol, I asked how you "forced" them, quoting the part I wanted explained. what did you do to FORCE them?
 
#11,370
#11,370
hog88 said:
Punishment for non compliance, switches, belts, paddles and a hot branding iron when necessary.
Click to expand...
that would qualify.

hopefully you have a nice logo.

the rest of that isn't forcing. and wouldn't be anywhere close to what is going on in conversion therapy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top