Justice Samuel Alito Got Out Of Bed on The Perry Mason Side
Oct 14, 2023
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses a Supreme Court case involving a racial gerrymander disguised as a political one. It explores the impact of gerrymandering on the Gullah people and their cultural preservation. The speakers express frustration with ongoing voting rights issues and the difficulty of proving circumstantial evidence. They analyze the evidence and lower court decisions in racial gerrymandering cases and emphasize the importance of addressing racial issues and protecting voting rights.
49:53
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
The Supreme Court's conservatives appear inclined to dismiss evidence of racial gerrymandering in the South Carolina case, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for future cases on voting rights.
The South Carolina gerrymandering case raises broader implications for the Gullah community, highlighting issues of gentrification, representation, and preservation of cultural rights.
Deep dives
The Case: South Carolina Gerrymandering
The podcast episode discusses a significant case regarding the South Carolina gerrymandering presented in the Supreme Court. The court heard arguments about a racial gerrymander that was disguised as a non-justiciable political gerrymander. The case focuses on whether race was the predominant reason for assigning voters to particular districts. The evidence presented in the case includes a voluminous record showing a significant sorting of voters on the basis of race. The court also found that black voters were disproportionately moved out of one district and that race was a better predictor than partisanship in assigning voters to districts.
The Impact on Gullah Community
The podcast highlights the impact of the gerrymandering case on the Gullah community, particularly in Hilton Head. The Gullah people, African American descendants of slaves, face challenges such as gentrification without representation and limited access to waterways. The case raises questions about preserving Gullah culture, supporting local businesses, and addressing issues like zoning and land ownership. The court's decision could send a message about the protection of constitutional rights for black people and the ability to address their concerns through elected representatives.
The Role of the Supreme Court
The discussion also explores the role of the Supreme Court in evaluating the evidence and applying the clear error standard. The lower court's finding of racial gerrymandering should not be disturbed unless there is no support in the record. The Supreme Court's focus on nitpicking evidence and questioning the methods used undermines the deference typically given to trial court factual findings. The potential rejection of racial gerrymandering claims could signal to states that they can disregard the constitutional rights of black voters under the guise of partisanship.
The Significance of the Case
The podcast emphasizes the broader implications of the case beyond South Carolina. If the Supreme Court fails to recognize the racial gerrymandering in this case, it could set a harmful precedent for other states. The use of political gerrymandering as a means to achieve racial discrimination and suppress black voters may become more prevalent. The case is seen as a significant test post-Rucho and post-Shelby, as voting rights protections diminish and polarization increases. The outcome of the case will have a lasting impact on issues that affect the lives of black voters and their ability to elect representatives who understand their concerns.
In this week’s big voting rights case, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether to uphold a South Carolina congressional map that is avowedly partisan (everyone agrees it favors Republicans, but partisan gerrymanders are A-OK under SCOTUS precedent). What is disputed here is whether the mapmakers relied on race to reach their partisan aims. A three-judge panel in South Carolina found it to be a racial gerrymander, and threw out the map. In arguments on Wednesday, it became clear that the high court’s conservatives would rather toss out the evidence the lower court used to reach its decision, an unusual move for the highest court in the land, but perhaps the bed it’s made for itself after ruling partisan gerrymanders non justiciable in Rucho v. Common Cause in 2019. And so SCOTUS cos-played as a trial court for two hours on Wednesday.
On this week’s Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Leah Aden, senior counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund who argued the case on behalf of the South Carolina Conference of the NAACP, and Taiwan Scott - a South Carolina voter and individual plaintiff in the case, who says the electoral power of his Gullah Geechee community is suppressed by the gerrymander.