Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Elena Kagan knows why the Supreme Court majority wrongly supported Texas’ redistricting effort

Published

on

Elena Kagan knows why the Supreme Court majority wrongly supported Texas’ redistricting effort

It’s emblematic of the Supreme Court’s increasingly tenuous legitimacy and image of rank partisanship that no one was surprised last week when it blocked a district court order overturning Texas’ recently redrawn congressional maps.

The new maps were intended to benefit Republicans and potentially flip five House seats from Democratic to Republicans, so, of course, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ruled in their favor. That the court’s conservative justices  simply ignore the law and lower-court decisions when they hurt Republicans — and create new legal doctrines when it benefits the GOP — is no longer news.

In a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense.

Indeed, in a clinical 16-page dissent, Justice Elena Kagan laid out in withering detail how her fellow justices ignored the law, past precedent and common sense in giving Texas Republicans a political boost. The  conservative majority isn’t even pretending it’s not putting its finger on the scale to help the GOP.

Texas Republicans redrew the state’s congressional maps this year in a brazen and cynical effort to flip five House seats to the GOP next year. A host of progressive groups quickly sued, claiming Texas had violated the 14th and 15th amendments in using used racial data in its gerrymandering process. A U.S. district judge appointed by President Donald Trump conducted an exhaustive nine-day hearing, heard testimony from 23 witnesses and pored over more than 3,000 pages of evidence. Then, he issued a 160-page decision that found overwhelming evidence that Texas had, indeed, created a racial gerrymander — and he blocked the maps.

Yet, Kagan wrote,“this Court reverses that judgment based on its perusal, over a holiday weekend, of a cold paper record.”

Considering how breezily they dismissed the district court judge’s ruling, it’s hard to imagine the conservative majority even bothered to read the opinion. If they did glance at it, they did so with minds already made up.

To step back a moment, in 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that while distasteful, unjust and “incompatible with democratic principles,” excessive partisan gerrymandering  was “beyond the reach of the federal courts” and thus legal.  And in a concurring opinion in the Texas case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that state Republicans were motivated by “partisan advantage pure and simple.”

But the evidence uncovered by the district court suggests this simply isn’t true.

The district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines.

The evidence that emerged in trial of the GOP’s racial intent was overwhelming. For example, in direct testimony, Texas’ mapmaker argued that he was motivated by the goal of delivering Texas Republicans more House seats but then acknowledged that he had racial “data available at the press of a key on his redistricting software.”

The new maps constructed three majority Black or majority-Hispanic districts, “by the smallest amount possible” in some cases, less than half a percentage point. Kagan’s dissent notes that an expert witness testified “she had generated tens of thousands of congressional maps” that benefit Republicans and don’t use racial data and “not one of them had racial demographics that looked anything like those in the 2025 Map.”

Moreover, the district court found repeated instances of Texas legislators admitting the new districts were drawn along racial lines. For example, the Republican who introduced the bill redrawing the maps said, “[W]e created four out of five new seats” to have a ‘Hispanic majority. I would say that’s great.’”

This  wasn’t even a close call, and yet, in a few paragraphs, the Supreme Court breezily dismissed the district court’s findings of fact.

Amazingly, Alito went a step further and attacked the plaintiffs for using false “claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends.” By this logic, the blatant partisans are not the Texas Republicans who redrew the state’s maps to give themselves a clear political advantage, but rather those who argued, correctly according to the district court, that Texas’ maps were motivated by racial intent.

What is particularly galling about the decision, as Kagan notes, is that under the court’s precedents, it is required to give “significant deference” to a lower court’s findings of fact regarding a racial gerrymander. The 6-3 conservative majority simply ignored that standard.

Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence.

Compounding  the court’s terrible decision is the main rationale used by the majority. “The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections,” the Supreme Court’s majority wrote.

Here the court is obliquely referring to the Purcell principle, which establishes that courts should avoid making decisions too close to an election as it might cause “voter confusion.”

Those of you reading that last paragraph might be confused. It’s December 2025. As Kagan dryly notes, “Texas is not on ‘the eve of an election.’”

If SCOTUS had upheld the district court’s decision, then Texas would use the same House maps from 2022 and 2024. One might even argue that alllowing Republicans to change that  map creates far greater “voter confusion.”

The Supreme Court’s reasoning is ludicrous — and also incredibly dangerous. “If Purcell prevents” changing electoral law nearly a year before the election, said Kagan, then “it gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election.”

That means that Indiana and Florida, two Republican-run states that are currently considering redrawing their House maps, could create racial gerrymanders and, according to the Supreme Court, there is no legal discourse to stop them. What’s to prevent Florida from utilizing Jim Crow tactics, such as demanding voters pass a literacy test or adopting poll taxes? The court has, in effect, given Republican states carte blanche to disenfranchise minority voters and ignore the Voting Rights Act.

At the end of her dissent, Kagan chastises her colleagues for acting like “we know better” than the court that actually listened to the evidence and issued a decision. ”I cannot think of a reason why,” she said.

But Kagan is being far too kind. She knows exactly why — as do the rest of us. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is, in effect, an arm of the Republican Party, intent on helping the GOP, the law be damned. The law is no longer the law. The law is whatever is good for Republicans.

Michael A. Cohen is a political writer and a fellow with the Eurasia Group Foundation.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

US approves new arms to Israel worth $6.67 billion

Published

on

US approves new arms to Israel worth $6.67 billion

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has approved a massive new series of arms sales to Israel totaling $6.67 billion and to Saudi Arabia worth $9 billion.

The State Department announced the sales to America’s allies in the Middle East late Friday as tensions rise in the region over the possibility of U.S. military strikes on Iran. They were made public after the department notified Congress of its approval of the sales earlier Friday.

The sales also come as President Donald Trump pushes ahead with his ceasefire plan for Gaza that is intended to end the Israel-Hamas conflict and reconstruct the Palestinian territory after two years of war left it devastated, with tens of thousands dead.

While the ceasefire has largely held, big challenges await in its next phasesincluding the deployment of an international security force to supervise the deal and the difficult process of disarming Hamas.

The sale to Saudi Arabia

The Saudi sale is for 730 Patriot missiles and related equipment that “will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a Major non-NATO Ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in the Gulf Region,” the department said.

“This enhanced capability will protect land forces of Saudi Arabia, the United States, and local allies and will significantly improve Saudi Arabia’s contribution” to the integrated air and missile defense system in the region, it said.

It was announced after Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman met with top Trump administration officials like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

A series of arms packages to Israel

The sales to Israel are split into four separate packages, including one for 30 Apache attack helicopters and related equipment and weapons, with another for 3,250 light tactical vehicles.

The Apache helicopters, which will be equipped with rocket launchers and advanced targeting gear, are the biggest part of the total package, coming to $3.8 billion, according to the State Department.

The next largest portion is the light tactical vehicles, which will be used to move personnel and logistics “to extend lines of communication” for the Israel Defense Forces and will cost $1.98 billion, it said.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the Trump administration of rushing to announce the deals for Israel in a way that would “disregard Congressional oversight and years of standing practice.”

He said in a statement that “the Trump Administration has blatantly ignored long-standing Congressional prerogatives while also refusing to engage Congress on critical questions about the next steps in Gaza and broader U.S.-Israel policy.”

Under the deals, Israel will spend an additional $740 million on power packs for armored personnel carriers it has had in service since 2008, the State Department said. The remaining $150 million will be spent on a small but unreported number of light utility helicopters to complement similar equipment it already has, it said.

In separate but nearly identical statements on Israel, the State Department said none of the new sales would affect the military balance in the region and that all of them would “enhance Israel’s capability to meet current and future threats by improving its ability to defend Israel’s borders, vital infrastructure, and population centers.”

“The United States is committed to the security of Israel, and it is vital to U.S. national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability,” the statements said.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Anger and anguish spread across Cuba as it learns of Trump’s tariff threat

Published

on

Anger and anguish spread across Cuba as it learns of Trump’s tariff threat

HAVANA (AP) — Massive power outages in Cuba meant that many people awoke Friday unaware that U.S. President Donald Trump had threatened to impose tariffs on any country that sells or supplies oil to the Caribbean island.

As word spread in Havana and beyond, anger and anguish boiled over about the decision that will only make life harder for Cubans already struggling with an increase in U.S. sanctions.

“This is a war,” said Lázaro Alfonso, an 89-year-old retired graphic designer.

He described Trump as the “sheriff of the world” and said he feels like he’s living in the Wild West, where anything goes.

After Trump made the announcement late Thursday, he described Cuba as a “failing nation” and said, “it looks like it’s something that’s just not going to be able to survive.”

Alfonso, who lived through the severe economic depression in the 1990s known as the “ Special Period ” following cuts in Soviet aid, said the current situation in Cuba is worse, given the severe blackouts, a lack of basic goods and a scarcity of fuel.

“The only thing that’s missing here in Cuba … is for bombs to start falling,” he said.

Cuba is hit every day with widespread outages blamed on fuel shortages and crumbling infrastructure that have deepened an economic crisis exacerbated by a fall in tourism, an increase in U.S. sanctions and a failed internal financial reform to unify the currency. Now Cubans worry new restrictions on oil shipments will only make things worse.

‘Cuba is a threat to Cubans’

On Friday, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said on X that Trump’s measure was “fascist, criminal and genocidal” and asserted that his administration “has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal gain.”

Meanwhile, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez wrote on X that Trump’s measure “constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat” and said he was declaring an international emergency.

Venezuela’s government also condemned the measure in a statement Friday, saying it violates international law and the principles of global commerce.

Trump previously said he would halt oil shipments from Venezuela, Cuba’s biggest ally, after the U.S. attacked the South American country and arrested its leader.

Meanwhile, there is speculation that Mexico would slash its shipments to Cuba.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Friday that she would seek alternatives to continue helping Cuba and prevent a humanitarian crisis after Trump’s announcement.

Sheinbaum said one option could be for the United States itself to manage the shipment of Mexican oil to the island, although it was necessary to first understand the details of Trump’s order.

Mexico became a key supplier of fuel to Cuba, along with Russia, after the U.S. sanctions on Venezuela paralyzed the delivery of crude oil to the island.

“It’s impossible to live like this,” said Yanius Cabrera Macías, 47, a Cuban street vendor who sells bread and sweet snacks.

He said he doesn’t believe Cuba is a threat to the United States.

“Cuba is a threat to Cubans, not to the United States. For us Cubans here, it is the government that is a threat to us,” he said, adding that Trump’s latest measure would hit hard. “In the end, it’s the people who suffer … not the governments.”

The backbone of Cuba’s economy

Jorge Piñon, an expert at the University of Texas Energy Institute who tracks shipments using satellite technology, said a key question remains unanswered: how many days’ worth of fuel does Cuba have?

If no tanker looms in the horizon within the next four to eight weeks, Piñón warned Cuba’s future would be grim.

“This is now a critical situation because the only country we had doubts about was Mexico,” he said, noting that diesel is “the backbone of the Cuban economy.”

Piñón noted that the Chinese don’t have oil, and that all they could do is give Cuba credit to buy oil from a third party. Meanwhile, he called Russia a “wild card: It has so many sanctions that one more doesn’t bother (Vladimir) Putin,” adding that because of those sanctions, a lot of Russian oil is looking for a destination.

Meanwhile, many Cubans continue to live largely in darkness.

Luis Alberto Mesa Acosta, a 56-year-old welder, said he is often unable to work because of the ongoing outages, which remind him of the “Special Period” that he endured.

“I don’t see the end of the tunnel anywhere,” he said, adding that Cubans need to come together and help each other.

Daily demand for power in Cuba averages some 3,000 megawatts, roughly half what is available during peak hours.

Dayanira Herrera, mother of a five-year-old boy, said she struggles to care for him because of the outages, noting they spend evenings on their stoop.

She couldn’t believe it when she heard on Wednesday morning what Trump had announced.

“The end of the world,” she said of the impact it would have on Cuba.

___

Mexico City is contributed to Havana and Maria Verza.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Ukraine braces for brutal cold as Trump says Putin agreed to halt power grid attacks

Published

on

Ukraine braces for brutal cold as Trump says Putin agreed to halt power grid attacks

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The terms of a Russian commitment to U.S. President Donald Trump to temporarily halt its bombardment of Ukraine during one of the country’s bleakest winters in years remained unclear Friday, as Ukrainians braced for even worse conditions to come next week.

Trump said late Thursday that President Vladimir Putin had agreed to a temporary pause in targeting Kyiv and other places as the region experiences freezing temperatures that have brought widespread hardship to civilians.

“I personally asked President Putin not to fire on Kyiv and the cities and towns for a week during this … extraordinary cold,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House. Putin has “agreed to that,” he said, without elaborating on when the request to the Russian leader was made.

The White House didn’t immediately respond to a query seeking clarity about the scope and timing of any limited pause.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed Friday that Trump “made a personal request” to Putin to stop targeting Kyiv until Feb. 1 “in order to create favorable conditions for negotiations.”

The mention of Feb. 1 was confusing since that is only two days away. Also, the cold weather is forecast to get much worse from Sunday, with temperatures dropping even further and making the time frame for a pause in attacks hard to understand.

Russia has sought to deny Ukrainian civilians heat, light and running water over the course of the war, in a strategy that Ukrainian officials describe as “weaponizing winter.”

Asked if Moscow agreed to Trump’s proposal, Peskov said, “Yes, of course.” But he refused to answer further questions about whether the agreement covered only energy infrastructure or all aerial strikes, and when the halt on strikes was supposed to start.

‘Evidence to the contrary’

Russia struck Ukrainian energy assets in several regions of Ukraine on Thursday but there were no strikes on those facilities overnight, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Friday.

In a post on social media, Zelenskyy also noted that Russia has turned its attention to targeting Ukrainian logistics networks and that Russian drones and missiles hit residential areas of Ukraine overnight, as they have most nights during the war.

Trump framed Putin’s acceptance as a concession. But Zelenskyy was skeptical as Russia’s invasion approaches its fourth anniversary on Feb. 24 with no sign that Moscow is willing to reach a peace settlement despite a U.S.-led push to end the fighting.

“I do not believe that Russia wants to end the war. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary,” Zelenskyy said Thursday. Ukraine is ready to halt its attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, including oil refineries, if Moscow also stops its bombardment of the Ukrainian power grid and other energy assets, he said.

Russia fired 111 drones and one ballistic missile at Ukraine overnight, injuring at least three people, the Ukrainian Air Force said.

The Russian Defense Ministry said that its air defenses overnight shot down 18 Ukrainian drones over several Russian regions, as well as the illegally annexed Crimea and the Black Sea.

Bitter cold forecast

Forecasters say Kyiv, which recently endured severe power shortages, will see a brutally cold stretch starting Friday that is expected to last into next week. Temperatures in some areas will drop to minus 30 degrees Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit), the State Emergency Service said.

The possibility of a respite in energy sector attacks was discussed at last weekend’s meeting in Abu Dhabithe capital of the United Arab Emirates, between envoys of Ukraine, Russia and the United States, Zelenskyy said, adding that he had agreed to adhere to a “reciprocal approach” on energy assaults.

“If Russia does not strike us, we will … take corresponding steps,” he told reporters.

Further talks were expected on Sunday in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, but that could change because of a spike in tensions between the United States and Iran.

‘We are ready for compromises’

It was unclear whether and how any partial truce might work amid ongoing wider fighting and mistrust between the two countries.

“There is no ceasefire. There is no official agreement on a ceasefire, as is typically reached during negotiations,” Zelenskyy said. “There has been no direct dialogue and no direct agreements on this matter between us and Russia.”

Ukraine had originally proposed a limited energy ceasefire at talks in Saudi Arabia last year, Zelenskyy said, but it gained no traction.

Disagreement over what happens to occupied Ukrainian territory, and Moscow’s demand for possession of territory it hasn’t captured, are a key issue holding up a peace deal, according to Zelenskyy.

“We have repeatedly said that we are ready for compromises that lead to a real end to the war, but that are in no way related to changes to Ukraine’s territorial integrity,” Zelenskyy said. “The American side understands this and says that there is a compromise solution regarding a free economic zone.”

Ukraine demands control over such a zone, he said.

___

Follow AP’s coverage of the war in Ukraine at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending