Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 12, 2026

The Supreme Court on Monday removed an obstacle to Alabama's using a new congressional map in this year's election that would eliminate one of the state's two majority-Black districts.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

NEW: The Supreme Court allows Alabama to ignore its court-ordered map and greenlights a last-minute republican gerrymander in the middle of the primaries. www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/ ...

[image or embed]

-- Mueller, She Wrote (@muellershewrote.com) 6:19 PM · May 11, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Voting Rights Act, we hardly knew ye!

I'd love to hear Boaz's take on all these election shenanigans, in light of the fact that we are not a democracy. I wonder why Boaz thinks Republicans are making so many changes to elections if we are not a democracy.

Perhaps he'd say, "It's to make sure we are not a Democracy."

#1 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-11 08:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

They're putting a thumb on the scale any way they can.

Every Accusation is a Confession with these People.

SCOTUS is completely Corrupted.

#2 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-05-12 12:42 PM | Reply

Good. Just in time for the midterms. Racially segregated maps flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 08:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"greenlights a last-minute republican gerrymander"

This is what I voted for.
--Boaz

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-12 09:08 PM | Reply

Clearly, today's Republican Party is as yesterdays was...segregation in terms of who gets to be at the top of the economic pyramid, and who gets discriminated against in the voting booth...all to support the billionaire oligarchs who run this country. Yes, things are getting more and more expensive, but the money is flowing into their pockets, out of your's.

#5 | Posted by Hughmass at 2026-05-13 06:11 AM | Reply

".all to support the billionaire oligarchs who run this country."

I think when USSR collapsed all need to appear concerned about the "well being" of the common people didn't just avaporate in Russia it also made "greed is good" turn into "greed is power here!." Now, all three branches of government that are dominated by Republicans who are openly flaunting their power to control politics to solidify .the power of the oligarchy. Short of revolution, there is no political pathway to ever take back the power by the people.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2026-05-13 08:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good. Just in time for the midterms. Racially segregated maps flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger

STFU idiot.

Returning to the racist south flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act.

And Roberts has the gall to whine that people think he's a partisan s*&^bag...

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-13 09:48 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Racially segregated maps flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act."

Yes they do.

Which is why this ruling is so egregious. It is bringing back maps that are segregated by race ( but claiming it's political).

See the new and old maps for Tennessee for example.

Memphis is majority black. And has now been divided into three districts to dilute the black vote there. They claim it's political but it's obviously racially motivated. And the result will be less black folks represented in Congress.

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-05-13 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pedoringer has been told what to believe so he believes it.

He gave up any semblance of thought a long time ago.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-13 12:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Returning to the racist south flies in the face of the Voting Rights Act."

It's a good thing that is not happening.

Look at the Louisiana district map and try to justify it. I triple dog dare you.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-13 04:54 PM | Reply

" Domestic Extremist
@RussianMeddler
1. Can a white person be effectively represented by a black congressman?

2. Can a black person be effectively represented by a white congressman?

If your answer to either of these questions is "no" then you are the racist"

#11 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-13 04:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's interesting how, with just one Supreme Court decision, Republicans have effectively erased the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-13 05:00 PM | Reply

It's interesting that whatever Constitutional argument worked to scuttle the Voting Rights Act in 2026, somehow it didn't work in 1965.

The meaning of the words in the Constitution itself must have dramatically changed during that sixty year span.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 05:06 PM | Reply

It's a good thing that is not happening.
Look at the Louisiana district map and try to justify it. I triple dog dare you.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound saying that as you argue that spreading one black district out into three white districts so that LA loses a black rep isn't a resurgence of the racist south?

Only a racist POS would claim "reverse racism" is as bad as historical southern racism.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-13 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'd love to hear Boaz's take on all these election shenanigans

Boaz hated Black Americans because they overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.

Republican states are making sure Black Americans' votes don't matter anymore.

Boaz would approve.

It's what he was always voting for.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-13 05:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

1. Can a white person be effectively represented by a black congressman?
2. Can a black person be effectively represented by a white congressman?
If your answer to either of these questions is "no" then you are the racist"
#11 | Posted by BellRinger

Can a white person be effectively represented by a Black President?
If your answer is "no" then you are the racist.

You answered "No," JeffJ.
The entire Republican Party answered "No."

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

whatever Constitutional argument worked to scuttle the Voting Rights Act in 2026, somehow it didn't work in 1965.
The meaning of the words in the Constitution itself must have dramatically changed during that sixty year span.
#13 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Pretty sure Alito admitted he made shit up in order to support his decision.

Based on reports from early May 2026, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been accused of relying on misleading, "fudged" data in a majority opinion that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act.

According to a review by The Guardian, the data in question - used to argue that racial discrimination in voting is no longer a major issue - originated from a Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) amicus brief.

www.theguardian.com


#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-13 05:15 PM | Reply

then you are the racist
#11 | POSTED BY BULLBRINGER

You're literally the biggest xenophobe on the DR.

Your racism has no equal.

#18 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-13 05:18 PM | Reply

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been accused of relying on misleading, "fudged" data in a majority opinion that significantly weakened the Voting Rights Act."

We can't expect a Supreme Court Justice or his staff to verify crucial data on an issue affecting democracy itself!
You're also racist for believing that, by the way. Sorry, those are the rules now.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 05:20 PM | Reply

" Do you have any idea how stupid you sound saying that as you argue that spreading one black district out into three white districts so that LA loses a black rep isn't a resurgence of the racist south?"

Separate districts, separate drinking fountains ... .segregation is racist.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-13 05:21 PM | Reply

Care to respond to #11? Didn't think so.

#21 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-13 05:22 PM | Reply

1. Can a white person be effectively represented by a black congressman?

So long as that white person is a Democrat, then Yes

2. Can a black person be effectively represented by a white congressman?

Sure, why not?

#22 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-13 05:30 PM | Reply

Separate districts, separate drinking fountains ... .segregation is racist.
#20 | Posted by BellRinger

So you're saying majority black districts made up of majority black communities is racism.
And majority white districts comprised of majority white communities is the same racism.
Those are separate districts, like separate water fountains, and thus racist.

So what should be done?
I guess the districts could be drawn differently.
Make the majority white districts have a few black areas in them
Make the majority black districts have a few white areas too.

By putting a Laser Beam Focus On Race, we can make the districting process Not Racist, Not Segregated.
There may have been a Federal Law which put in a framework that do something like that.
I'm not sure. Maybe you could ask a high school history teacher and get back to us.

You can't possibly defend your asinine arguments.
Not that anyone was expecting anything other than silly accusations from you!

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 05:34 PM | Reply


2. Can a black person be effectively represented by a white congressman?

At face value? The answer is no.

White Americans haven't a clue what Black Americans deal with in this country.

You never will.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-13 05:38 PM | Reply

Separate districts, separate drinking fountains ... .segregation is racist.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger

You're a dumbf*&^. The exact type the GOP depends on to stay in power.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-13 05:42 PM | Reply

Can a man be effectively represented by a woman?
Can a woman be effectively represented by a man?

90% of Republican Congressional Committee members are white.
85% of Republican Congressional Committee members are men.

Those numbers sure don't suggest Republicans think a woman can represent a man, but a man can represent a woman.

These numbers show a white Republican very often represent a black man.
but a black Republican only very rarely represent a white man.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 05:48 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort