The US Supreme Court

[Svartalf]

"representative democracy" makes a farce of real democracy, you know, a system where citizens have a real say in government, not just pretend to be represented by "representatives" who actually represent only themselves and the party that helped them get elected.

[macdoc]

So move to Switzerland.

[L'Emmerdeur]

tl;dr? Being anti-racist is racism against racists.

Cue the greasy shitbird Bannon:

... what's so outrageous and I find so offensive is the South has been oppressed by this since the 1960s or '70s.

[source]

[Tero]

Supreme Court will hold it up
https://www.npr.org/2026/05/01/nx-s1-58 ... fepristone

[pErvinalia]

Hold what up?

[Tero]

No mailing of abortion pills.

[Tero]

"In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the majority's approach risks unraveling decades of civil rights protections.

"That is racial vote dilution in its most classic form," Kagan wrote. "A minority community that is cohesive in its geography and politics alike, and that faces continued adversity from racial division, is split—'cracked' is the usual term—so that it loses all its electoral influence. Members of the racial minority can still go to the polls and cast a ballot. But given the State’s racially polarized voting, they cannot hope—in the way the State’s White citizens can—to elect a person whom they think will well represent their interests."
"The Voting Rights Act was not merely a statute. It was a national commitment to meaningful political participation and vigilance against racial exclusion.

ABC

[Brian Peacock]

...Johnson introduced the Voting Rights Act that same month, “with the outrage of Selma still fresh” (Johnson, “Remarks in the Capitol Rotunda”). In just over four months, Congress passed the bill. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests and poll taxes designed to disenfranchise African American voters and gave the federal government the authority to take over voter registration in counties with a pattern of persistent discrimination. “This law covers many pages,” Johnson said before signing the bill, “but the heart of the act is plain. Wherever, by clear and objective standards, States and counties are using regulations, or laws, or tests to deny the right to vote, then they will be struck down” (Johnson, “Remarks in the Capitol Rotunda”)...

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/voti ... s-act-1965

[Tero]

https://karireport.blogspot.com/2026/05 ... homas.html
Heritage Foundation Makes Thomas an Honorary Caucasian

[Brian Peacock]

It's his ideology rather than his race that's the issue here.

[Svartalf]

well, does 'honorary white' mean, corrupt farright asshole?

[Tero]

Roberts court gives wins to Trump

His administration argued that suspicion of a crime is enough to put a lawful permanent resident, also known as a green-card holder, on immigration parole. Federal attorneys urged the court to take an expansive view of executive authority over immigration.

The court is also considering cases over Trump’s push to end birthright citizenship, potentially revive a restrictive asylum policy and end temporary legal protections for migrants fleeing war and natural disasters in their homelands.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 3986f96e6f

[Brian Peacock]

Well, if all you need are suspicions....

[L'Emmerdeur]

tl;dr? Being anti-racist is racism against racists.

On the other hand (and it's Alito penning the decision again) racist comments are actually colorblind. He's talking about such gems as 'shithole countries' and 'they're eating the cats, eating the dogs.'

'The Supreme Court Once Again Endorses Trump’s Racism'

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 6–3 that the Trump administration can revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian and Syrian immigrants. The case is called Mullin v. Doe. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, determined that the decision by former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to revoke TPS was “unreviewable” by the court. Further, Alito argued that the affected immigrants were “unlikely to succeed” on their constitutional claim that the administration violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause. Alito then said that the administration can begin mass deportation immediately, refusing to allow people to stay here while their litigation is pending.

In so ruling, Alito and the other Republicans on the Supreme Court have given constitutional protection to the openly racist and white supremacist policies of the Trump administration. When it comes down to it, the thousands of words Alito wrote could have been tossed out in favor of just 10: “Haitians have no rights white men are bound to respect.”

Every Republican you know, whether they’re wearing a wife-beater or Elon Musk underoos, will respond to these objections with some version of “but temporary protected status is supposed to be temporary.” Which, duh, congratulations for successfully googling the definition of “temporary”; your Republican mother must be very proud. The disagreement comes because there is supposed to be a process for ending TPS, and that is a process the Trump administration refused to follow.

Have you checked in on Haiti recently? The country functionally has no government. It is run by several rival gangs. Things are so unsafe that the Haitian national soccer team, which amazingly made the World Cup this year, literally cannot play soccer matches in Haiti. Somehow, the Trump administration has decided that none of this matters—that a country where you can’t even watch a sports game is nevertheless safe enough to deport people to. And now, Alito says that the Supreme Court isn’t even allowed to review that stance. But he is wrong, because the court can review the Trump administration’s process for making that wild determination. Or, more accurately, its lack of a process, given that there is no evidence that the administration conducted any investigation at all into the conditions in Haiti. (It’s not even clear that these people read a newspaper.) Instead, Trump just remembered that Haitians are Black and decided to send them back.

And that leads to the second problem with this ruling. No matter what you think about TPS, it is flatly unconstitutional for the US government to make its decisions based on racial animus. Or at least it was unconstitutional until Trump took office. There is a mountain of evidence that racism was behind Trump’s TPS decisions. But according to Alito, Trump’s obvious bigotry is not something you can prove. Instead, he writes:

“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications… And a person without racial bias can provide a harshly unfavorable description of living conditions in some of the countries with TPS designations. The criteria for TPS designations guarantee that many, if not most, designated countries have such characteristics.”

[...]

The line 'no rights white men are bound to respect' is a rough quote from an openly racist Supreme Court decision: Dred Scott v. Sanford.

[Tero]

The abortion case that the court decided back in Biden days was actually a simple one. Mississippi clinic wanted abortions up to 16 weeks and the state law they challenged had 15 weeks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._ ... ganization

The Majority Opinion (5–4): Written by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority held that a right to abortion is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Using the legal doctrine of originalism, the Court concluded that the right is neither "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition" nor essential to "ordered liberty". Alito famously asserted that Roe was "egregiously wrong from the day it was decided".

"We was just reading the Constitution, and it never said 15 or 16 weeks."