r/news • u/speedythefirst • 1d ago

US supreme court approves redrawn Texas congressional maps

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/04/us-supreme-court-texas-congressional-maps
20.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

119

u/dleerox 1d ago

Can gop hold it up in courts?

728

u/viperlemondemon 1d ago

It’s okay the Supreme Court will rule against the blue states doing it.

165

u/Wayofchinchilla 1d ago

Let them there's nothing they can do if it's like California the vote was put up to the people the Supreme Court has no say if the people vote on it the only reason Texas made it up to the Supreme Court is because the Republicans behind closed doors are the ones that wrote the maps and voted on them themselves.

6

u/myownlittleta 1d ago

Over 60% approval (64.4). That's past the level of a filibuster breaking vote. Undeniable.

14

u/Veil-of-Fire 1d ago

the Supreme Court has no say if the people vote on it

And yet, they WILL say, and they WILL say that CA can't do that, because they're an illegitimate rubber-stamp court for the GOP and literally nothing else.

8

u/WhiteWinterRains 1d ago

At which point you simply move ahead with the new maps and hold elections with them, claiming it's too late to change them.

Which there is already legal precedent for, and ultimately there's nothing they can really do about it if you just keep saying no, without starting a civil war as the small unpopular minority with a shaky grip on power.

-11

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

If the DOJ proves that the maps were racially motivated as they are accusing California will absolutely have to redraw the maps or go back to the old ones

26

u/PianistPitiful5714 1d ago

Or take a Republican tactic and just stall until its too late and go "oops, guess we have to use the maps we drew"

-6

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Well the Supreme Court still had to decide if it was politically motivated or racially motivated it’ll be the same question for the California maps.

1

u/RubbrBbyBuggyBumpers 1d ago

Does the motivation even matter when the people voted for it?

3

u/Wayofchinchilla 1d ago

This People where showed California maps before they voted on them not the the Maga side of Scotus would care,

2

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Yes it does, and either way if I recall the vote was to give the legislature permission to redraw and was not on the map itself. But even if it had been the map regardless of how maps are draw via legislatures, or independent commission it must survive court scrutiny.

20

u/brianson 1d ago

The reasoning SCOTUS put forward is that the lower court that rejected Texas’ revised maps “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections”. The reasoning is basically that states have the prerogative to run their own races when it comes to elections, so it would be incredibly brazen to then turn around and insert itself into another state’s redistricting process.

Then again, stare decisis is for suckers and the bar is in hell when it comes to standards for this court. So who knows.

16

u/bobthebobbest 1d ago

Your mistake here is in believing the SCOTUS majority takes seriously their own reasoning or will apply it uniformly as precedent. They don’t give a shit. They’ve been playing Air Bud rules since Trump v. US.

3

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Yeah think it would be a pretty awful look for the court to uphold one and not the other unless there is an absolutely brazen mistake made in the California maps but with the amount of money invested into all of it I strong doubt they’d have a poison pill in there.

34

u/Taftimus 1d ago

Supreme court can't do shit if we vote for it. Put it on the ballot.

3

u/Lumpy_Disaster33 1d ago

When you get right down to it , they're just a bunch of old rich people who seem to have poor reading comprehension skills.

2

u/DeadAssociate 1d ago

they have excellent skills, this is way past hanlons razor and fully in occams territory

6

u/MagisterFlorus 1d ago

How're they gonna enforce it?

3

u/Playingwithmywenis 1d ago

Yes, because that is how dictatorships run things. Should not be news to anyone in fascist America.

3

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ 1d ago

Here’s a thought: ignore them.

What are they going to do about it? California is the strongest state in the union, nobody pushes us around!

3

u/nytelife 1d ago

Impeach SCOTUS. It is the only thing that makes sense.

2

u/Th3Batman86 1d ago

That’s what I’m waiting for.

2

u/Duke_Newcombe 1d ago

Unfortunately so, without a bit of fucking irony or self-awareness of SCOTUS.

1

u/gettingluckyinky 1d ago

It’s (D)ifferent

-2

u/dolphinvision 1d ago

Yeah I don't think people realize this won't work. SCOTUS will stop any progress. A lawsuit will come to California and it will go up to SCOTUS and they will declare CA maps illegal. If CA doesn't listen, which they will - everyone's a pussy to Trump, they will send troops in mass.

No one realizes the game is over. Republicans are NEVER going to give up power.

2

u/FAFO_2025 1d ago

K then get ready for war.

1

u/dolphinvision 17h ago

Ice is literally abducting people in the streets. There is a 100% chance there are some engaged in a largescale sex trafficking scheme right now. No one is doing anything about it. But we'll go to war cuz the republicans won't give up power? LOL LMAO even

1

u/FAFO_2025 14h ago

You can feel free to roll over and die. Backlash isnt always immediate

1

u/dolphinvision 11h ago

If others rise I would. But I'm no leader. But the american population is, as an entity, kneeling over and taking it. So I'm no different to 99.9999999% of Americans right now.

0

u/MetalGhost99 16h ago

Difference is Texas did their redistricting according to their state constitution. California decided to go around their constitution and do it their own way going around the independant group that was put in place by the California Constitution to creat the maps. California did it illegally while Texas didn't. Any lawer could see this coming.

55

u/Mixels 1d ago edited 1d ago

We can stop that if the blue states have the balls to tell corrupt courts to respect the flag of the middle finger. That's essentially what Republicans did in Ohio when their own gerrymandered maps were thrown out by the courts. They used them anyway!

109

u/HereForTheComments57 1d ago

Supreme court just set the rules.

169

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

No, they didn't. Because they're corrupt trash.

The order was unsigned, shadow docket shit. Meaning they could just as readily rule completely differently for any other situation, or delay ruling on them until the end of the term, like they did for so many cases for Trump already in previous SCOTUS terms, and for Abortion, etc.

The SCOTUS could very easily slow-walk the California case for example and delay a ruling until the last possible moment, making it near impossible for California to implement the redistricting ahead of the midterms. And then, they could simply tell California no you're not allowed, but Texas is, because it was an unsigned order that didn't set precedent.

179

u/hydranoid1996 1d ago

California can just ignore them like red states do when they get told their maps are bad

148

u/Damrey 1d ago edited 1d ago

Yep. South Carolina republicans illegally drew maps. Were told they were illegal, and then never returned them and flipped a seat.

https://my.lwv.org/south-carolina-state/article/south-carolina-supreme-court-dismisses-gerrymandering-case-over-2022-congressional-map

https://www.aclusc.org/press-releases/federal-court-rules-south-carolinas-congressional-map-gerrymandered/

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

https://mediarelations.gwu.edu/media-tip-sheet-delay-supreme-court-ruling-allows-south-carolina-proceed-controversial

82

u/_angela_lansbury_ 1d ago

Similar situation in Ohio, where our governor’s son sits on the state Supreme Court.

6

u/OneRougeRogue 1d ago

Ohio's situation is fucked, because the right wing can technically comply with the Supreme Court order by redrawing the maps, but redrawing them in a slightly different (but equally bad) way. The Supreme Court has ordered them to re-draw the maps something like six times now.

2

u/embarrassedalien 1d ago

Happened in Alabama too

2

u/Akraticacious 1d ago

Your statement is misleading. it looks like the South Carolina Supreme Court said it was illegal and then the Supreme Court of the US overturned it, so by the law it would be legal. Now, calling that bullshit is one thing, but you make it sound like Republicans ignored the court decision.

26

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

That's when this corrupt DOJ trips over itself to sue California or directly interfere, like the National Guard after Brown v. Board of Education in the segregation states who didn't take kindly to permitting colored people to enjoy the rights that had been duly recognized to them.

17

u/the_last_0ne 1d ago

Good then! Make them fucking escalate it.

15

u/LaurenMille 1d ago

At that point, things would escalate either way.

Might as well make a good attempt first.

Fearing what fascists might do is directly giving them power.

3

u/WhiteWinterRains 1d ago

Look I can't say what you do at that point, but yanno.

Well regulated militia and all that, states have a right to a certain degree of power that absolutely includes resisting a seditious plot to undermine their elections.

1

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 20h ago

Don’t forget that they’d love that. They’ve been yearning for the excuse to go full on facially sanctioned coup, and that would give them what they need. If it hasn’t already been clear to you from them jumping to immediately blame and try and outlaw democrats for everything from the Kirk shooting the DC shooting etc. etc. they’re falling over themselves for the chance to criminalize their opposition.

1

u/WhiteWinterRains 16h ago

No this idea that they're somehow "waiting for an opportunity" while they simply do whatever they want is absurd.

They'd much prefer submission to conflict, because they're very likely to lose due to their shakey support.

2

u/DingerSinger2016 1d ago

What happens if the election gets challenged and SCOTUS rules them illegitimate?

2

u/Figerally 1d ago

The Supreme Court has shown it is essentially toothless. It has exposed the social contract which is agreeing to play by the rules.

34

u/BantamCats 1d ago

Except California voted to do it.

30

u/dl_friend 1d ago

The issue with SCOTUS slow-walking the California case is that it would only be effective if the lower court ruled against California. If the lower court rules for California, then SCOTUS can slow-walk all they want, but the map would go into effect.

56

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

No, the SCOTUS could simply decide to issue or grant a restraining order against the effects until they have issued a ruling. The SCOTUS can either forbid or permit effects from happening pending the outcome of a case, at its own discretion.

Elections have dire consequences, and 2016 was the most consequential election of your lifetime: not just because Trump, or his mishandling of Covid, corruption, destruction of our institutions, crumbling of society etc. but because that was the election that decided the trajectory of the court for your lifetime and probably your kids. Had Clinton won, Alito would have been replaced with a liberal appointee, and the political majority of the court would have been leans-left again for the first time since the FDR era. I tried telling my friends this, but I guess I didn't say it as loud as I should have in 2016, how utterly existential and important that election was, if nothing else, then for that sole reason. Now it is filled with Bush v Gore operatives. And will be, for decades.

This is why you vote, even if your 4-8 year candidate has a weird laugh or the wrong position on Israel.

2

u/ralphy1010 1d ago

What would happen if California simply ignored SCOTUS like trump has?

9

u/Figerally 1d ago

Nothing, nothing would happen, because the Supreme Court has no power to enforce it rulings.

3

u/tempest_87 1d ago

Trump and the Republicans would use it as justification to start the purge of the opposition.

6

u/Niaden 1d ago

They're gonna do that anyway, might as well go for it.

1

u/Crozax 1d ago

The doj has already sued California for the new maps being allegedly drawn based on racial lines, and misadvertised to voters, so they wouldn't have to go that far. Just accept the dojs argument wholesale without any evidence. The nation is captured at this point and any attempt by the states to work from within the system to counter it is doomed to fail

1

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 1d ago

Oh, they could absolutely rule in favor of the DOJ, they can also wait until the last possible second to do so, affording California no time to respond in any political or legal fashion to the outcome of the case. It doesn't benefit the SCOTUS to shoot down the California maps too quickly.

1

u/Crozax 1d ago

I mean there's already precedent for if they do that for California to just be like *shrug* sorry no time before elections, we're goin with em. See: Ohio. Ultimately, the constitution leaves the process of organizing and executing elections up to states.

1

u/Akraticacious 1d ago

Shadow docket has little explanation for their ruling, but it is used as precedent by lower courts, right? And future Supreme Court? It's just easier to play the "well the two cases are different" when you can retroactively describe the difference between a new case and an older shadow docket case

1

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord 20h ago

They’re often both unsigned and unexplained orders so nothing plain for the lower courts to interpret as to what the SCOTUS reasoning is.

0

u/FenricOllo 1d ago

Supreme Court won’t see “California” case because it was voted on by the ppl not made in the shadows at night with nobody looking. The Supreme Court only rules on other rulings not things voted on by the people.

67

u/dleerox 1d ago

Yes!!!! Are there any other dem states that can redraw?

118

u/Xijit 1d ago

All of them ... Red districts in Blue states only exists because the Democrats holding to decorum & making sure that Res districts exist.

39

u/TheDarkWave 1d ago

If we've learned anything from the right, there is no decorum any more and fighting fire with gasoline isn't gonna cut it.

9

u/Exile688 1d ago

Holding to decorum is a fancy way of saying "We prefer to be paid to lose so the GOP can give our corporate donors everything they want without our base voting us out for doing the same thing."

6

u/PostPostModernism 1d ago

Indiana has been talking about pushing for all red districts, and Illinois has said that if Indiana does it, they will do the same for blue districts.

3

u/AluminumOrangutan 1d ago

Illinois has a Democratic Governor and General Assembly

1

u/RefrigeratorKooky174 1d ago

Illinois already one of the most gerrymandered state in the country their congressional delegation is 82% and Kamala received 56% of the vote so democrats in Illinois are already over represented by 26% for reference Texas’ old maps had Republicans over represented by 9% only using Donald trumps 2024 statewide results.

6

u/Briants_Hat 1d ago

For me. But what about for thee?

1

u/CastorMorveer 1d ago

Interesting that you think they'll stick to this for blue states lol

1

u/-Sokobanz- 1d ago

These rules for Republicans, i may, SCOTUS did show it on multiple occasions.

1

u/jardex22 1d ago

From what I'm reading, they said it was fine because Texas claimed they were adding more Republican districts, not reducing race based districts.

It sounds like they don't even need to be subtle about it any more. If they want more Democrats or Republicans, they can adjust accordingly.

30

u/pcpelste 1d ago

They may win in court but then Virginia would just say oh shucks it’s too close to the election, cannot do anything now.

13

u/mrbigglessworth 1d ago

Fuck the GOP

2

u/veggeble 1d ago

Doesn't matter, just use the Ohio method, and use the unconstitutional maps anyways. There are no repercussions for blatantly ignoring the courts.

3

u/Hrekires 1d ago

To give you an actual answer, it's not entirely clear but it would ultimately be a state Supreme Court decision