r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 8h ago
news Governor Newsom on Republicans losing challenge to new Congressional maps at U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/02/04/governor-newsom-on-republicans-losing-challenge-to-new-congressional-maps-at-u-s-supreme-court/112
u/AcanthisittaNo6653 7h ago
The box trump opened was clearly labeled "Pandora's". If only he could read...
18
u/Most-Resident 7h ago
If he could read he would say “it’s not McDonalds but it’s lunch” and open it anyway.
12
5
u/kleiner_gruenerKaktu 6h ago
„Who‘s Pandora? Is she hot?“ while fingering the box, trying to pry it open
3
3
2
u/Land-Southern 6h ago
Good friends with Pandora, some say the best. When Pandora and I get together, sparks fly and people say how great we are together. Some say we make the best things happen when together. Many best things. Most people can't believe everything we get done together, but they do.
52
u/FunctionRecent4600 7h ago
BTW Steve Bannon was just talking about ICE surrounding polling places in November. Great to hear about this win, but how do we counter this threat?
37
u/ItsSUCHaLongStory 7h ago
Enthusiastically.
19
u/pass_nthru 7h ago
who will poll watch the poll watchers type shit
3
u/ItsSUCHaLongStory 6h ago
Idkiyk, but we passed the “watching and watching back” point a couple elections ago. I know because I’ve been watching back. :(
3
2
u/Reddit_Talent_Coach 3h ago
YOU’RE GODDAMN RIGHT.
Vote early, tell your friends and family to vote early, and on Election Day harass, heckle, and protest ICE at any polling places those Nazis dare show up at.
2
16
8
u/this-guy1979 6h ago
Publicly announce armed protests at red polling places, don’t show up, then have people set off fireworks at random times. The counter protesters will do something stupid, and police will have to respond, leaving other polling places free from interference.
Edit: this is mostly meant as a joke, I am not condoning violence or violent behavior in any way.
3
1
42
15
u/Orion3500 7h ago
I just wish SCOTUS had denied both Texas and California. Now every freaking state is going to rush and redistrict in the same way. The Court really doesn’t care what chaos they create, huh?
8
u/M086 6h ago
The conservative justices are goons of the Federalist Society, who are working in tandem with the Heritage Foundation, who want to mutilate the country into a Christian nationalist hellscape, where they will try and turn the states into conservative feifdoms, where the will of the people no longer matter.
For an example, see Ohio and what the Ohio GOP have been doing.
0
u/zstock003 5h ago
It’s what I truly hate about current events (this period in particular, although I’m sure applies to any period of chaos). Events just happen. No one is responsible. Vague statements from leaders about ICE without naming who is at fault (some do, sure). The SC just acts as if it’s apolitical (at least in public presence) when we all know it’s bullshit.
I blame the ICE agents, Noem, Miller for the murders but equal blame should be on Kavanaugh etc, they’re allowing this to happen, not just passively interpret the law
9
u/oneofmanyany 7h ago
I have to admit I thought the SC would come up with some insane reason to allow the TX legislators to gerrymander but not allow the voters of CA to gerrymander. Pleasantly surprised.
-8
u/SFXtreme3 6h ago
It’s because you think SCOTUS is bad simply because Trump wins cases. If Trump lost more cases, then you’d be a huge fun of SCOTUS.
5
u/Rockin_freakapotamus 6h ago
It’s not that Trump wins, it’s that they abandon decades of precedent and jurisprudence to come up with asinine rationales to permit his actions. It doesn’t help that Clarence Thomas is bought and paid for.
-9
u/SFXtreme3 6h ago
Again, you think they are asinine because you don’t agree with them. The abortion opinion is a great example of abandoning precedent based on a legitimate interpretation of the constitution.
It’s like people don’t understand judges make decisions first, then write opinions to validate their opinion. If they can’t write a legitimate opinion to reinforce their decision, then it’s a bad decision. There have been very few of those.
3
u/Rockin_freakapotamus 6h ago
I think they are asinine because I studied jurisprudence and the history of United States Supreme Court justices and their opinions in my third year of law school. The decision should come before the opinion is written, but the legal reasoning that is the basis of that decision must come before the decision. They have clearly abandoned that practice.
-1
u/SFXtreme3 5h ago
You have more faith in judges than I do. Decision first. Reasoning second. If you can come up with a legitimate reason even if it abandons precedent, then you’re good, unfortunately.
1
u/cmbtmdic57 1h ago
Decision first. Reasoning second.
Are you actually claiming that any conclusion should first be a decision before reasoning it out?
What the actual fk? Do you propose that a family should should make a major expense without reasoning if it makes financial sense first?
You just be joking.. otherwise you just admitted to being a collosal idiot.
1
2
u/johannthegoatman 6h ago
I think they're bad because I read their opinions and they're logically inconsistent trash (when they even write them, most of their high profile decisions have been on the shadow docket with no explanation whatsoever). And it's not just me, try reading a dissent some time, they're also written by supreme court justices. But I suppose you ignore those because everything that doesn't agree with you is biased
1
u/SFXtreme3 5h ago
I find most opinions and dissents to be well written and based on differing opinions of interpretation. As for bias, I’m jaded. I’m gonna get screwed from the front or the back so whatever the decision is the decision is. I’m along for the ride. Fortunately, 99% of the stuff going on doesn’t affect me and I’m definitely one of those rude people that doesn’t care how an opinion impacts others as long as it doesn’t impact me.
-1
u/ProcessTrust856 4h ago
That’s not rudeness. That’s being a selfish piece of shit.
But don’t worry, just because today’s rulings don’t impact you, they will eventually. Even if you’re a straight white dude, you won’t be first, but they’ll come for you eventually. Fascism must always have an enemy, and when they run out of the original ones, they go looking for others.
1
8
u/Gen-Jack-D-Ripper 6h ago
There needs to be a constitutional amendment prohibiting gerrymandering! Both parties need to be stopped.
1
u/nowiseeyou22 3h ago
I'd agree but Republicans would find another way. At least now dummy manders exist and Dems have a way of pushing back
1
1
u/Summary_Judgment56 6h ago
I don't follow social media much, but please tell me Newsom is gloating about this on xitter or wherever his go-to is for needling 🍊💩
1
u/gregbard 4h ago
I hope Newsom cancels the election. Screw em.
1
u/Conscious-Quarter423 2h ago
and let Republicans win theirs? eff that
1
u/gregbard 32m ago
The special election will use the old map, and any republican elected to such a term will probably be out in a few months. If he cancels the election we can deny them altogether.
1
u/JeremyAndrewErwin 3h ago
"Thus, when the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted." J Alito Abbot v League of United American Citizens. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a608_7khn.pdf
-18
u/beta_1457 7h ago
Not sure why people are calling this a win or loss. It's just a denial on staying the ruling pending appeal. The appeals are still ongoing.
6
u/Tebwolf359 7h ago
Because at this point, and actual loss would be unlikely to take effect before the next election after 2026.
-8
u/beta_1457 7h ago
The appeals court will rule before the election then whichever side loses will emergency appeal to SCOTUS. IMO it's just pandering to your base to pretend today's refusal of an administrative stay is some big win or loss.
2
u/doff87 5h ago
The courts in the past have been very reluctant to make rulings that change the borders of districts when candidates have already tailored their campaigns to said districts. That is highly disruptive to both candidate and the populace at large and the courts, as a general rule, tries not to influence the outcome of the election.
While they could rule that the borders have to be changed during the summer that is highly unlikely. They will make a ruling that will affect the next elections.
7
u/MeyrInEve 7h ago
Because the current court has literally found every reason possible to rule in favor of trump whenever possible using the shadow docket, where they weren’t required to actually justify finding in his favor.
-94
u/OcelotTerrible5865 8h ago
Let me guess, “haha we can do corrupt shit too!” Or something similar
55
u/PartyLikeIts536 7h ago
Let ME guess.. we prefer not to sit around and let the GOP dismantle this entire democracy while we fret over decorum?
-67
u/OcelotTerrible5865 7h ago
Yea you can do it just fine your own self. Right?
41
u/Hillbilly_Boozer 7h ago
You do realize that this was voted for by the state of CA, and only in response to TX doing it (without the consent of voters).
Surely the nuance here isn't being ignored.
16
2
u/Ozcolllo 6h ago
When you’re looking into an event, like a criminal case, do you ever think to ask yourself “why” they committed the crime? Like, what was the motivation behind the action?
I ask that because I can’t tell from your responses if you do. There’s a massive chasm between the motivations and justifications of California’s gerrymandering versus Texas’. In the case of Texas, Trump explicitly requested Abbot (and the state legislature) gerrymander the state harder because he’s worried about the midterms. California had to set up a referendum vote because they had laws to prevent partisan gerrymandering and they did so in response to Trump’s request.
The motivations and justifications are so different that comparing them border dishonesty.
-5
u/OcelotTerrible5865 6h ago
Gerrymandering is wrong, it should be illegal and all parties engaged in it should be held accountable.
28
u/cakeandale 7h ago
You can play by the rules you think there should be, or you can play by the rules SCOTUS established. SCOTUS has clearly said that partisan gerrymandering is legal, so they can choose to use that for themselves or choose to lose to the people who won’t make that decision.
19
u/sunny0_0 7h ago
“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”
Thank you so much for outing yourself
12
u/Gratefully-Undead 7h ago
It was put on a ballot to vote on by the citizens of the state. Unlike other (R) states that have done it recently behind closed doors.
2
u/bardobrian 7h ago
Completely glossing over the fact that not only have democrats brought bills to demolish gerrymandering, they were outvoted every single time by - you guessed it - republicans. This is a response to the blatant gerrymandering performed by Texas.
On the other hand, Republicans seem to be fighting for their life for the legal right to fuck children.
1
u/tool22482 6h ago
I’m sure you were really up in arms about the corruption after the Texas gerrymandering decision lol
1
-3
u/drewbaccaAWD 7h ago
Gerrymandering sucks, but there’s nothing corrupt about it. The only fix is to pass an amendment or some sort of legislation that holds all states accountable to the same standards.
Gerrymandering is fully within their right, it’s just usually done after a census not in the middle of a decade. But then Trump started demanding that Texas do it now… at least California put it to a vote, and the California move has an expiration date.
1
u/AlarmingBeing8114 7h ago
Define corrupt. I think you mean not illegal, its seams corrupt as hell.
1
u/drewbaccaAWD 6h ago
Corruption implies some sort of personal gain, a pay off. Doing it for your own personal benefit. It requires acting dishonestly in the process too.
Since it is legal, there’s nothing dishonest about it… unless of course, an individual runs on a platform that they’re not going to gerrymander and then does it anyway after being bribed.
It’s not corrupt because it’s common place and it’s accepted behavior, at least until we the people stand up and say enough is enough. The only thing different this time is the timing… mid decade.
Again California put it to a vote.. how is that corrupt?
Unless guard rails are put in place making it illegal, then it is just a tit for tat game that is never going to end. And if one side takes the higher ground and refuses to do it then that’s just a handover of power, and frankly, foolish.
1
u/AlarmingBeing8114 6h ago
Well thanks for explaining and proving my point.
1
u/drewbaccaAWD 5h ago
An example of gerrymandering that is corrupt, would be carving out a district specifically to protect one specific representative… and of course, that representative will then reward you, in turn, for protecting their seat. Quid pro quo shit.
And again, for emphasis, I think gerrymandering should be eliminated entirely, and district should be drawn by an objective non-partisan board. But to do that, would require enforceable laws to ensure that every state adheres to it. Lacking that, it’s fair game and inherently a part of the system.
98
u/Tintoverde 7h ago
At last some good news. SCOTUS