Supreme Court gives Republicans a BIG boost in Alabama for midterm redistricting



Republicans just got another victory at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The highest court in the land approved the redistricted congressional map for Alabama in a 6-3 decision released late on Tuesday evening. All three liberal justices dissented.

'Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season.'

One of Alabama's majority-black districts will be eliminated by the new map.

The dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, accused the majority justices of "unleashing chaos" with the decision, likely confusing voters at this late stage in the election season.

"Just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos," Sotomayor claimed. "Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent."

Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey released a statement in support of the decision.

"The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed what I have said all along, and that is that Alabama knows our state, our people, and our districts best," she wrote. "Today's decision is a win for the people of Alabama and our elections."

Democrats were outraged over the decision.

"The Supreme Court has now confirmed that there is no longer a Voting Rights Act in America, and states are essentially free to discriminate against minority voters with no consequences," said Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.), whose district was eliminated by the redistricting.

"Once again, the right-wing Supreme Court has put its blatant partisanship on full display, allowing Alabama Republicans to change the rules in the eleventh hour and use a racist congressional map that federal courts have found — on two separate occasions — intentionally discriminates against Black Alabama voters," read a statement from Rep. Terri Sewell, a Democrat from Alabama.

RELATED: Federal court strikes down Alabama redistricting effort — GOP to APPEAL at Supreme Court

"This is just the latest in a pattern of outrageous Supreme Court decisions that help Republicans desperately cling to power ahead of the midterm elections while diluting Black voices and erasing decades of hard-fought civil rights progress," Sewell added.

She went on to accuse Republicans of taking America "back to the Jim Crow era," an accusation that was repeated by the NAACP.

"This is a Court that is stripping Black voters of power and voice at a speed that would put Jim Crow jurists to shame," said Kristen Clarke, general counsel of the NAACP. "Our message to communities remains the same — the best way to express dissent is by showing up at the ballot box this election season."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS: Wisconsin Supreme Court Violated A Catholic Charity’s First Amendment Rights

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated a Catholic charity’s First Amendment Rights. The case involved the Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB), which is the charitable arm of the Diocese of Superior in Wisconsin. Part of the CCB’s mission is offering a variety of philanthropic services — including to non-Catholics. As […]

Sotomayor’s Bodyguard Saved By Second Amendment Self-Defense Right That Justice Rejected

An armed U.S. marshal thwarted a carjacking while protecting the residence of anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Biden’s Real Legacy Will Be As Silencer Of Speech

As Jonathan Turley writes in his new book, The Indispensable Right, Joe Biden is 'the most anti-free speech president since John Adams.'

Leftists Falsely Suggest Biden Can Assassinate Trump, SCOTUS Justices

Leftists are incorrectly suggesting SCOTUS's ruling permits any action by the president so long as the president calls it an official act.

SCOTUS Reaffirms Constitutional Right To Trial By Jury

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, dissenting, lamented that the ruling would hinder the administrative state.

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's taxpayer-funded staff repeatedly pressured schools and libraries to buy her books: Report



Justice Sonia Sotomayor appears to have fallen victim to the kind of scrutiny the liberal media usually reserves only for conservatives on the Supreme Court.

The Associated Press revealed Tuesday that Sotomayor's taxpayer-funded court staff have repeatedly pressured public institutions that have hosted the Bronx native to buy her books.

For instance, in 2019, when peddling her children's book "Just Ask!," library and community college officials in Portland, Oregon, desperate to host Sotomayor, reportedly labored to satisfy her various requests, significantly spiking the cost of hosting the Obama nominee in the process. Notwithstanding their logistical gymnastics, they later learned from an aide for the justice that they hadn't bought nearly enough copies of the book.

The aide, Anh Le, reportedly told Multnomah County Library, "For an event with 1,000 people and they have to have a copy of Just Ask to get into line, 250 books is definitely not enough."

Documents obtained by the AP revealed the Portland episode was anything but anomalous.

Before planned appearances at the University of California, Davis law school, at the University of Wisconsin, and at Clemson University in South Carolina, Sotomayor's staff again figuratively twisted arms and filled them with costly and unsolicited signed books.

Michigan State University had to shell out $100,000 just so that copies of the justice's memoir, "My Beloved World," could be peddled to incoming freshmen.

The AP indicated that whereas there is a cap on how much Sotomayor can make on outside yearly pay — extra to her salary of $285,400 — there is no limit on how much she can raise hocking books.

Sotomayor secured a $3.1 million advance on her 2014 memoir alone and has pulled in at least $400,000 since 2019 from sales of her kids' books.

The Wall Street Journal indicated that she is hardly the only one on the Supreme Court swimming in book money, as Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Clarence Thomas have similarly published books or have books on the way. However, according to the AP, the liberal justice is exceptional in at least this: "None of the justices has as forcefully leveraged publicly sponsored travel to boost book sales as has Sotomayor."

The Supreme Court is bereft of a formal code of conduct, meaning Sotomayor's staff can squeeze schools to promote her side-hustle ad nauseam.

Critics have suggested that while not technically an offense, the practice is nevertheless problematic.

Kedri Payne, a former deputy chief counsel at the Office of Congressional Ethics and current general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told the AP, "This is one of the most basic tenets of ethics laws that protects taxpayer dollars from misuse. ... The problem at the Supreme Court is there's no one there to say whether this is wrong."

While Sotomayor and her staffers can continue holding her prospective presence ransom for book sales, members of Congress couldn't follow suit, having been prohibited under ethics rules from using government resources for personal gain.

Michael Luttig, formerly a federal judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, suggested the practice could prove compromising, at the very least for the court's reputation.

"I have never believed that Supreme Court justices should write books to supplement their judicial income," said Luttig. "The potential for promotion of the individual justices over the Court at the reputational expense of the Court as an institution, as well as the appearance of such, is unavoidable."

The Supreme Court told the AP in a statement, "Chambers staff assist the Justices in complying with judicial ethics guidance for such visits, including guidance relating to judges’ publications. For example, judicial ethics guidance suggests that a judge may sign copies of his or her work, which may also be available for sale, but there should be no requirement or suggestion that attendees are required to purchase books in order to attend."

However, according to the court, "When [Sotomayor] is invited to participate in a book program, Chambers staff recommends the number of books based on the size of the audience so as not o disappoint attendees who may anticipate books being available at an event, and they will put colleges or universities in touch with the Justice's publisher when asked to do so."

Mike Davis of the Article III Project, a group that opposes attacks on judicial independence, claimed in a statement, "Justice Sotomayor is a good person who appears to have made a mistake by having her staff sell her books, including what appears as pressure on schools and libraries to buy a minimum number of her books before her speaking engagements."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

When Masks Become A Religious Talisman

No small part of the population became addicted to signaling their moral superiority even preceding the pandemic.