u/redditrisi

>Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy – who lost his primary reelection just days ago in large part because Trump crusaded against him – voted to advance the war powers resolution. Before his reelection loss, Cassidy had opposed the measure, which would prevent more U.S. military strikes, many times.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/19/senate-iran-war-powers-trump-bill-cassidy/90164373007/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

Inexplicably /s

It's funny, until I remember that we pay these people. And I don't mean only Republicans. I mean all of them, Democrats, Republicans and alleged indies. And a war is no small matter.

First and foremost, I'm noting only for fun and whatever else it may be worth, if anything. So, please faithful, believers in the literal nature of the Bible, agnostics, atheists and everyone in between, just relax, if you can. I am not advocating for any view of the bible. I am only noting some things I found interesting, even though I don't know what exactly to make of them. (This may have been better as a Silly Saturday post, but I saw the live science article only a few minutes ago.)

> And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life...

Genesis 3:14, KJV

>AI Overview >The Bible does not explicitly state the serpent had legs, but Genesis 3:14 describes a curse where God tells the serpent, "On your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust All the days of your life". This is widely interpreted in theological tradition to mean the serpent was originally structured differently, possibly with legs or walking upright, before it was cursed.

And some believe that the curse itself changed the physical form of the serpent.

https://www.livescience.com/animals/snakes/more-than-100-million-years-of-evolution-how-snakes-evolved-and-lost-their-legs?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

Also, scientists who are believers have said that the order of creation described in the bible is accurate, except, of course, as to the timeline. However, other parts of the bible state that God does not view time as we do.

> 1 Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.

<snip>

>4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

From Psalm 90, KJV Please see also, 2 Peter 3:8, KJV, which was likely derived from Psalm 90:4.

>But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Granted, a thousand is not the same as millions, or even thousands, plural; but we are reading what was recorded in the first century, common era, and a few centuries earlier. Maybe 1,000 was the largest number they bandied about then?

Why is this OP in a political sub, Silly Saturday or not?

Many of our secular statutes derived from the bible. And repealing (or not) those bible-based statutes that many now see as not the business of politicians all but consumes modern politics. They are often referred to as "culture war issues."

TL; DR: Please read the last four paragraphs.

As we know, a census is taken every ten years, as required by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution of the US. The purpose of the requirement is insuring fair representation in Congressional elections. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/about/census-constitution.html

I copypasta'd this explanation of gerrymandering from the Brennan Center rather than linking because I would not be surprised if neolib definitions of gerrymandering begin morphing soon. Please note, among other things, the implicit condemnation of a 2019 decision by the Supreme Court that a redistricting map cannot be challenged in federal court (leaving that to state courts: only states grant a right to vote, not feds).

>Gerrymandering Explained >The practice has long been a thorn in the side of American democracy, but it’s becoming a bigger threat than ever.

>Every 10 years, after the census, states redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts to reflect population changes, a process known as redistricting. Done well, it’s a chance to create maps that elect legislative bodies that fairly represent communities and that are, in the words of John Adams in 1776, an “exact portrait, a miniature” of the people as a whole. Redistricting also takes place at the local level to redraw the boundaries of districts used to elect the members of bodies such county commissions, city councils, and school boards.

>But redistricting also is a chance for those in control of the process to rig maps to favor certain candidates or political parties, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

>Although gerrymandering has long been a problem in the United States, the redistricting cycle after the 2020 census was the first since the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that gerrymandered maps can’t be challenged in federal court. Since then, Americans have seen gerrymandering ramped up to unprecedented levels in many places — and the worst may be yet to come.

>Here’s what to know about partisan gerrymandering and how it impacts our democracy. Partisan gerrymandering is undemocratic.

>Elections are supposed to produce results that reflect the preferences of voters. But when maps are gerrymandered, politicians and the powerful choose voters instead of voters choosing politicians. The result is skewed, unrepresentative maps where electoral outcomes are virtually guaranteed, even when voters’ preferences at the polls shift dramatically. In extreme cases, the party drawing the maps may even be able to win a majority of seats even though it wins only a minority of the vote.

>These line drawing abuses are especially frequent when one political party has sole control of the process. Under single-party control, map drawing tends to occur with inadequate transparency, with partisan concerns taking priority over the fair representation of the public as a whole.

>There are multiple ways to gerrymander. >The easiest way to understand gerrymandering is through the lens of two basic techniques: cracking and packing.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/gerrymandering-explained The article continues.

Gerrymandering can have various motivations. It can be intended to make a district very likely to go either Democrat or Republican. It can also be intended to affect adversely the re-election chances of a Representative who has upset his or her party's PTB. IMO, this was the case with Kucinich (too populist?) and Capuano (too outspoken?) and perhaps even Crowley (AOC's predecessor in office). And, it can be used to discriminate by race or other criteria.

Gerrymandering has been described as violating "one person, one vote." In turn, violating "one person, one vote" has been thought to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also thought to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is discriminating on the basis of a class such as race, religion, etc.

As we all know, Democrats believe that they own the black vote, which, though changing, remains largely true, perhaps especially in the South, where Johnson era legislation wrought dramatic change from Jim Crow, especially at the polls. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/interactive-how-key-groups-of-americans-voted-in-2024-according-to-ap-votecast; https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2023/07/racial-identity-explains-presidential-vote-choices-more-than-geography

>The term "gerrymandering" was coined in 1812 after a review of the redistricting maps of Massachusetts set by Governor Elbridge Gerry noted that one of the districts looked like a mythical salamander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

Despite the 2019 decision implicitly condemned by the Brennan Center, the Supreme Court recently reviewed a district in Louisiana shaped, not like a salamander, but like a snake transversing Louisiana. Allegedly, the district was drawn as it was on the basis of race.

The Supreme Court held that gerrymandering a district on the basis of race violates the Constitution of the United States. Louisiana v. Callais April 29, 2026, 6-3 decision; https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

This was by no means the first time that the Supreme Court had held that acting on the basis of race was unconstitutional, nor the first time it has held that favoring blacks was unconstitutional. It was not even the first time that the Supreme Court held that gerrymandering on the basis of race was unconstitutional: https://www.oyez.org/issues/199

The reaction from Democrats, minion media and AI? The Supreme Court just further gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Just FTR. The Bill of Rights does protect the rights of states against the federal government, as well as the rights of individuals. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was based on findings of fact as to the discriminatory actions of certain states in the early 1960s, when Jim Crow was the law in a number of states.

The Supreme Court had heard a case protesting the DOJ's actions under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the findings of fact had never been updated since the 1960s. Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

The claim was that the federal government could not forever continue to act based on Congressional findings that old when laws and facts had changed. The Supreme Court agreed and expressly charged Congress with updating its findings as to discrimination in the states.

Congress still has not done that. However, no one blames Congress for its inaction. Instead, they blame only the Supreme Court for its Tenth Amendment considerations, with no mention of the Court's explicit charge to Congress (which not even the Supreme Court can enforce).

Do we or do we not want the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment against both dilution of vote and discriminating on the basis of race? Do we or do we not want partisan gerrymandering?

Do we or do we not want gerrymandering on the basis of race? If we do, that is one hell of a slippery slope than can be used to make most districts in this country majority white, as easily as it can to allow mostly black districts. Also, gerrymandering that favors of other races/colors, such as Latinos or Asians, could, in some states, dilute the votes of everyone else, including blacks.

One difference, however, is that 83% if white voters did not choose the same candidate in the 2024 Presidential election. So, while that would indeed be racial gerrymandering, which federal courts may not address, it would not also be partisan gerrymandering, which only state courts may address.

This is just a reminder that you may or may not get a different impression of a Supreme Court case by reading the case, or maybe only the summary that precede the opinion, than by reading media's pants on fire headlines and stories about the case.