Explain this to me like I'm a six year old.

[zanana1]

I've been reading about the SCOTUS decision on the Voting Rights Act and I might just be losing brain cells, but is this the same as gerrymandering?

[Volaris]

1. The court said, in effect, that its cool to draw a racial gerrymander as long as it benefits white people,

Because reverse-rascism Totally Isn't Fair Either (even tho it doesn't exist except in the fever dreams of aggrieved white rascists), as demonstrated by the fact that a black guy got elected that one time (hence, their aggrievment) so america totally doesn't even HAVE a race problem anymore, so considering it at all is just outdated and the libtards are all just living in the past.

If I got that wrong, somebody else here will correct me, but that's my understanding of it distilled down to Alito-speak.

[ProfessorGAC]

2. Seems About Right

The thing that makes the reasoning even dumber is that the "black guy" getting elected had nothing to do with how districts were drawn, as it was a national election.
So, it is foolish to use that as a reason to deny localized district drawing.
Yet they did.
As you said, it requires "Alito-speak", typically referred to as BS.

[malaise]

4. Not if the plan is to ensure that no non-whites or women

win office at any level - looks like the plan is billionaire controlled apartheid.
They will fail.

[ProfessorGAC]

6. That May Be The Plan

But, that doesn't make it logical.
They simply don't care about facts, truth or logic. Just power.

[malaise]

7. Just power.

and wealth

[mercuryblues]

3. Because I said so.

?

[Kid Berwyn]

5. Setting back the clock to when it's OK to own people.

Like bedtime at Neverland Ranch and Epstein Island, the big hand is always on the little hand.