I disagree. Let’s have a look at the bigger picture.
Nearly a third of the state’s residents are Black. However, the Republicans, who hold a majority in the Louisiana legislature and also hold the governorship, drew the congressional districts in such a way that Black voters had a majority in only one out of six districts.
Activists and organizations filed a lawsuit challenging this. The state subsequently revised the district boundaries so that two of the six districts had a majority of Black voters, reflecting their proportion of the population.
In response, a group of white citizens who felt they were being discriminated against filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court.
The court has now ruled in favor of these plaintiffs. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative majority, argued, that the category of “race” should not play a role in government decisions.
This argument about a “color-blind” Constitution always surfaces in the U.S. context whenever there is an attempt to roll back social progress.
It ignores the fact that the Constitution was not written to be “color-blind,” but rather to discriminate deliberately. Enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person, not as full citizens. That did not change until the 1860s, after the abolition of slavery had been decided through the most violent conflict in U.S. history.
Like other advocates of “colorblindness,” Alito now invokes, of all things, the constitutional amendment adopted at that time and the Equal Protection Clause it contains, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law.
Yet this clause was specifically intended to safeguard the interests of minorities. And it took nearly another century and an additional law to force the Southern states to apply this part of the Constitution.
As early as 2013, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.
Until then, states that had previously enacted racist laws to discriminate against voters needed permission from the federal government if they wanted to change their election laws. The Supreme Court struck down this requirement, reasoning that the conditions that had made this restriction necessary no longer existed.
As if the racism that runs through the history of the United States had suddenly vanished.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once remarked that this was like throwing away your umbrella in the pouring rain just because you didn’t get wet under it. She would be horrified to see how some of her former colleagues are now, some six years after her death, further eroding the hard-won civil rights. And this just a few months before the 250th anniversary of the United States.
But at its core, it simply follows a tradition that is as old as the nation itself. Every step forward that brings the United States closer to fulfilling the promise it made at its founding, yet denied to a large portion of its population, that all people are created equal and must therefore have equal rights, is followed by a step backward.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 significantly increased the proportion of Black voters. But efforts to weaken the law have been going on for just as long as the law itself. Now, with the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court that Donald Trump helped create, those efforts have succeeded.
The coming months and years will likely reveal what happened after the initial ruling in 2013. States used the Supreme Court’s decision as a pretext for implementing numerous measures that made it particularly difficult for Black voters to cast their ballots. Now the Court has set another precedent.
Therefore the title "Supreme Court limits the voting rights act" is correct. To be more specific it is missing a ",again".
As you might have noticed, for months now, a redistricting war, a veritable battle over the drawing of electoral districts, has been raging in various states.
Sadly, the Democrats have also gotten drawn into it, adopting the motto “fight fire with fire”, and now want to manipulate electoral districts to their own advantage in order to keep up with the Republicans.
The latter now see this as their chance to prevent defeat in the November congressional elections.
In Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina, all states in the Deep South of the U.S. where people were once enslaved and which later enacted racist discrimination laws, leading Republicans are already planning special legislative sessions to quickly approve redistricting plans.
Marsha Blackburn, a staunchly pro-Trump senator from Tennessee who is running for governor there, posted a map of her state on social media in which every single county is colored red as in the color of the Republican Party.
They no longer need to worry about anyone stopping her.
The Supreme Court has made sure of that.
Nitpicking, but this has bugged me for a while and I'm taking this opportunity to vent:
"Enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person, not as full citizens."
They were not counted as three fifths of a person in a way that matters for what we talk about today. They got zero percent of the vote they deserved. They probably got, on average, quite substantially less than three fifths of the respect and dignity they deserved. They were counted as three fifths of a person for how much they magnified the power of the votes of their captors and how much taxes their State had to pay. Slavery would have been every bit as wrong if they were counted as whole persons (or half persons, non-persons, double persons) for apportionment and taxation.
> Nearly a third of the state’s residents are Black. However, the Republicans … drew the congressional districts in such a way that Black voters had a majority in only one out of six districts.
That’s the expected outcome in the absence of racial discrimination. If a group is 1/3 of the state population, and you divide it into districts, you’d expect the population to be 1/3 in each of those districts as well. If there is not an even population distribution you might expect one district to be majority minority. But two would require extreme gerrymandering unless the population distribution was highly uneven.
> In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative majority, argued, that the category of “race” should not play a role in government decisions.
Yes, absolutely. This is a core principle, and a necessary principle in a multi-racial democracy. Especially one like ours, which has no majority race any longer.
> This argument about a “color-blind” Constitution always surfaces in the U.S. context whenever there is an attempt to roll back social progress.
Creating race-based voting districts is the opposite of social progress. The idea of organizing politics along racial lines—and drawing that into our voting maps—is retrograde and racist.
> It ignores the fact that the Constitution was not written to be “color-blind,” but rather to discriminate deliberately.
It wasn’t, then we fought a big war, and we got the 14th amendment, which was designed to be color blind. It was designed to protect the interest of minorities in being treated identically without regard to race. So were the civil rights Laws.
You should watch the movie “RBG.” Justice Ginsberg built her career as a lawyer advocating to interpret the laws regarding sex discrimination in exactly the same way Justice Alito interprets the laws regarding race discrimination. She represented men challenging laws that purportedly discriminated in favor of women. Her argument was the laws say “equal,” and they mean what they say. They don’t permit discrimination in either direction.
> As if the racism that runs through the history of the United States had suddenly vanished
It doesn’t matter whether racism has “vanished.” Two wrongs don’t make a right. The government can’t discriminate based on race in one place to cancel out asserted race discrimination in another place. If you want to combat racism, you have to do it directly.
The appeals to history also ring hollow. It’s not 1965. Today, whites in Louisiana will overwhelmingly vote for a non-white who shares their politics over a white who doesn’t. In 2007, a brown guy became the first non-incumbent in a Louisiana history to win the governor’s race in the first round without a runoff.
I will take you at your word that you genuinely want a politics free of racial discrimination, but all of the points you’re trying to make here are being immediately disproven by the reality on the ground. Florida has already passed a redistricting that massively and transparently disenfranchises black voters as a direct result of this decision. Louisiana is currently trying to postpone their already-underway primaries to push through a redistricting which I expect will do the same.
I think learning how to read and understand scientific papers, and therefore actively training and flexing your critical thinking abilities, is such a valuable life skill that you shouldn’t outsource the thinking process to AI.
I recommend reading this instead, and then trying the concepts you learn from it out in topics that personally interest you by looking at something like Google Scholar or any other search engine for scientific papers or open access journals.
That way you can also compare your own research to what this tool is outputting to see what it missed, or what you might have missed, always under the assumption that the AI hallucinates, while you hopefully don’t have that issue.
Thanks for your point of view. Its great advice for someone already well on their academic journey.
ELI is built as an on-ramp for those that don't have the education al background to get over the learning curve required for this method to be practical.
Glad everyone is ok, including Trump.
Every assassination attempt on the man is such nonsense.
There is not a single good reason to try to kill Trump.
Just ridicule him in public and call him out for what he is. That’s hurting the man more than any bullet could. Have you seen him rage and yell “fuck you” at a factory worker for calling him a pedophile protector? That’s the way to deal with Trump. Laugh about him, call him an idiot, or a PPP.
You vote him out of office, like people did before. You see his lawyer sweat black goo and laugh about it, and about Trump ranting on social media for a while, then go on with your life.
He is 79. I’d be surprised if he made it past 85. That’s like six more Christmases. We are almost done with his nonsense. Don’t throw your life away because of him.
In 200 years, the man will be erased from collective human conscience.
When was the last time you and your friends thought about John Quincy Adams, the US President 200 years ago? Young people barely have the attention span to make it through the news, if they are not dancing them on TikTok.
His buildings will be renamed, his policies rolled back, he will be no more than a stain in American history.
All emperors meet the same fate, since we started putting things on the record. Nobody cares about them, you, or me in about three generations’ worth of lifetimes.
That’s some of the beauty of being human. Everything will be forgotten in time, unless you did upload photos from that spring break at Lake Havasu in 2005 to Facebook, that shit stays forever, talking about you, Emily.
Ridicule doesn't work. It hasn't worked at all. In fact it did the opposite. The constant attention on trump since the beginning was what lead to his rise. Certain elements in the masses saw themselves in the ridicule directed at trump, and identified with him as a result. That's why despite being a total failure policy wise he was voted in a second time. You need to focus on the failures of his policy. Take them seriously. Demand they be explained to you, as citizens of a republic. When they harm you, express outrage. That is what hurts trump.
The CIA is toppling oppressive regimes this way for decades. You create friction, the oppressor pushes back, and the people gather behind the oppressed.
Ridicule and constantly calling out idiots for what they are does work. You create friction by it. Trump made sure the factory worker gets fired, people were pushing back by donating for him, and they will vote against him in the midterms.
Abuse of power directed at the citizens is something most people will not forget or forgive in a free society, no matter what political beliefs they have, unless they are facists.
The stuff Petti did, filming ICE agents, being in their face, openly calling them out, created friction. They killed him because of that friction. The whole state pushed back in return.
Creating friction is what makes Republicans losing seats in the Congress and allows the regain of power from Trump, who is mostly ruling by executive order.
As a citizen, it’s not your job to focus on the failures of his job and show them to the public. It’s what you voted representatives for and the job of journalists. You demand their inactivity to be explained by them over the phone, over mail, respectfully showing up at their office. All day, every day, the only time they should be at peace is when they eat, sleep or be on the toilet.
You create friction for them. It’s not the fault of the people that he got voted again, it’s that most of the Senate and Congress rather try to protect their own interests and power than openly confronting the President, creating friction, every day, all day, until the President pushes back. Which in return will have the people gather behind the suppressed, jailed, or murdered representatives.
You have a different method of creating friction in mind, but don’t do the job of the people you pay handsomely to represent you or that of the press. Your energy is better spent creating friction for them until they act. Then you support them when they take the heat they are supposed to take if they fight for your rights instead of just cashing in from their position of embarrassing passiveness.
Space not being my domain, but how do you prevent space-based launch platforms from getting attacked by adversaries crashing cheap satellites into them, grilling them with ground-based direct-energy weapons China is clearly developing capabilities for:
I mean we know Musk has pretty pictures and PowerPoint slides but is overpromising and underdelivering on basically anything he touches. That’s acceptable for cars and flamethrowers, but for national security?
Notice how I didn't state any names? I'm not here to be a free ad. I'm just saying they're actually good tools, if you vet them right. Microsoft Dragon Copilot is not good, for example. We piloted that and had an 11% retention rate after 3 months. Trash product.
But how do I make sure you’re actually a healthcare CIO for 12 years and do not have any personal investment in the AI space or specifically in this kind of business, which means better ROI if you chill these kinds of products, right?
I can’t, so every time people are overly enthusiastic about something and throw numbers purely based on anecdotal evidence without any scientific backing that this is a good and safe approach at scale, I am sceptical.
Don’t take it personally, it’s just my approach and experience on the Internet that most of the people throwing anecdotal experience without anything to back up their claims are 95% of the time selling you something they directly profit from.
In this case, you don’t need to mention any product names. It’s enough if you make it sound fancy and believable enough to make people invest money in the space you're already invested in so the value of your investment goes up.
If you destroy the integrity of the professional military corps through destructive and despotic behaviour that drives out those who hold to their principles, soldiers like this are the result of Hegseth’s cultification.
Nobody should be surprised.
Hegseth thinks loyalists + AI as brains can replace decades of actual real-world experience and keeping the highest ethics and morality standards with a bunch of AI-driven baboons with stars on their shoulders.
Everyone can already feel the ripples of what he is doing. There is an exodus in excellence in the upper echelons of the us military never seen before.
The US is getting less safe by the day. You can also see it on tourism data and forecasts. A lot of people don’t feel safe to travel to the US any longer.
Soccer World Cup in the US and 250th anniversary of the USA would have caused a tourism boom with past administrations. But people rather go to China instead.
"Almost anything that doesn’t involve the Apple Pencil (Procreate being one of the true killer apps, the app that may have sold more iPads to creative professionals than anything else) could be done better on a MacBook. Even email feels better on a MacBook.
"Today, they sit in the corner. iPadOS simply isn’t an environment for most “serious” work."
You sound ridiculous.
Half of your argument evolves around your distorted view of "serious work".
What do you consider serious work?
I analyse satellite pictures from conflict zones on my M1 Pro iPad while smoking a blunt, on my back, on a blanket in the park, right now, and probably get paid by the hour more than you make in a day. I can ENHANCE with the power of my fingers as gradually as I need on a 13" screen, not being limited by tiny touchpad space or getting a stiff neck. Try the same with a MacBook.
I’d call that serious work.
My GF put her MacBook away and does Music via Creator Studio on her iPad Pro since it released, mobile and in a creative setting without disruption by her phone, or the necessity of a table, because the iPad got Cellular, and she can live comfortably from it. She’s actually working right now on the other side of the tree.
Not serious work either I guess.
My brother is taking photos of government officials during their travels, and works on iPad Pro exclusively during shoots. It’s much nicer to discuss and touch up photos with an official on an iPad than holding your MacBook in their face like an early 2000s playboy photographer.
Not serious work either I guess.
I frequently visit the Parliament in my country. A lot of the legislation knowledge work is done on iPads. By people who rather chill with the Parliament visitors in the sunlight, thanks to nanotexture, having a chat with them, without looking unapproachable behind a laptop screen or balancing a MacBook on their knees. iPads invite social interactions and make you approachable. MacBooks put up a wall.
Not serious work either I guess.
They are more mobile. I can basically sit down everywhere and get serious work done without looking like a MacBook Moron with an external screen battleship setup and an extra mouse.
My brother’s wife is using the LiDAR sensor inside the iPad Pro for her interior design work. She can do everything on one device. Where’s the LiDAR in the MacBook?
Guess that is not serious work either.
It has GPS, good luck navigating to the next gas station from the middle of nowhere when your phone dies with your MacBook. Guess you’ll just point it at the sky and yell Connect!.
If you travel for work iPad can be a lifesaver.
My lawyer does most work on his iPad Pro.
If you read and annotate documents for a living, why the hell would you do it on a MacBook?
I know people in construction who only use iPad and get work done. Not everyone is a writer, or photographer, or walker.
It’s not the iPad or iPadOS that is limited in a way that doesn’t let you do "serious work".
It’s actually your mental ability to come up with better solutions. Don't blame Apple for being unflexible and dumber than most smart people choosing the right tool for the right job in the place they want to be, rather than being tied to an office or a wall outlet or relying on a phone with a lot smaller battery than an iPad, and their laptop.
The pencil is just another plus. If coding is your way to do serious work, yeah you’re kinda fucked on iPad but there are millions of people who get serious work done on their iPad and then use it recreationally laying on the couch or sitting in the bus where MacBooks look silly and are uncomfortable.
Nearly a third of the state’s residents are Black. However, the Republicans, who hold a majority in the Louisiana legislature and also hold the governorship, drew the congressional districts in such a way that Black voters had a majority in only one out of six districts.
Activists and organizations filed a lawsuit challenging this. The state subsequently revised the district boundaries so that two of the six districts had a majority of Black voters, reflecting their proportion of the population.
In response, a group of white citizens who felt they were being discriminated against filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court.
The court has now ruled in favor of these plaintiffs. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s conservative majority, argued, that the category of “race” should not play a role in government decisions.
This argument about a “color-blind” Constitution always surfaces in the U.S. context whenever there is an attempt to roll back social progress.
It ignores the fact that the Constitution was not written to be “color-blind,” but rather to discriminate deliberately. Enslaved people were counted as three-fifths of a person, not as full citizens. That did not change until the 1860s, after the abolition of slavery had been decided through the most violent conflict in U.S. history.
Like other advocates of “colorblindness,” Alito now invokes, of all things, the constitutional amendment adopted at that time and the Equal Protection Clause it contains, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law.
Yet this clause was specifically intended to safeguard the interests of minorities. And it took nearly another century and an additional law to force the Southern states to apply this part of the Constitution.
As early as 2013, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.
Until then, states that had previously enacted racist laws to discriminate against voters needed permission from the federal government if they wanted to change their election laws. The Supreme Court struck down this requirement, reasoning that the conditions that had made this restriction necessary no longer existed.
As if the racism that runs through the history of the United States had suddenly vanished.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once remarked that this was like throwing away your umbrella in the pouring rain just because you didn’t get wet under it. She would be horrified to see how some of her former colleagues are now, some six years after her death, further eroding the hard-won civil rights. And this just a few months before the 250th anniversary of the United States.
But at its core, it simply follows a tradition that is as old as the nation itself. Every step forward that brings the United States closer to fulfilling the promise it made at its founding, yet denied to a large portion of its population, that all people are created equal and must therefore have equal rights, is followed by a step backward.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 significantly increased the proportion of Black voters. But efforts to weaken the law have been going on for just as long as the law itself. Now, with the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court that Donald Trump helped create, those efforts have succeeded.
The coming months and years will likely reveal what happened after the initial ruling in 2013. States used the Supreme Court’s decision as a pretext for implementing numerous measures that made it particularly difficult for Black voters to cast their ballots. Now the Court has set another precedent.
Therefore the title "Supreme Court limits the voting rights act" is correct. To be more specific it is missing a ",again".
As you might have noticed, for months now, a redistricting war, a veritable battle over the drawing of electoral districts, has been raging in various states.
Sadly, the Democrats have also gotten drawn into it, adopting the motto “fight fire with fire”, and now want to manipulate electoral districts to their own advantage in order to keep up with the Republicans.
The latter now see this as their chance to prevent defeat in the November congressional elections.
In Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Carolina, all states in the Deep South of the U.S. where people were once enslaved and which later enacted racist discrimination laws, leading Republicans are already planning special legislative sessions to quickly approve redistricting plans.
Marsha Blackburn, a staunchly pro-Trump senator from Tennessee who is running for governor there, posted a map of her state on social media in which every single county is colored red as in the color of the Republican Party.
They no longer need to worry about anyone stopping her. The Supreme Court has made sure of that.
Shameful.
reply