BS Summary: This video contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 121 hits. Analysis detected 1,164 faulty-reasoning hits from 691 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76% and a BS Rank of 84% (2,838 of 16,813 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the video peer group.
The Supreme Court Monday lifted a mandate in Alabama that required the state to use a congressional map with two majority black districts.
The ruling means the state can use a 2023 drawn map that only has one majority black district.
Alabama is just one state looking to join the redistricting battle after the Supreme Court struck down Louisiana's map.
The high court said it relied too heavily on race when it drew a second majority black congressional district.
Louisiana's two Democratic representatives, both black men who were at risk of losing their seats, condemned the Supreme Court's decision.
When there's a voting rights seat created, it guarantees a black an election.
No, it doesn't guarantee a black anything.
It just gives a black an opportunity to win an election.
And that's why they even passed the Voting Rights Act.
It's devastating.
I mean, it is a direct blow to the Voting Rights Act.
It's a direct blow to one's ability to to exercise their basic freedom, and that is to cast a vote for the person of their choice.
Wall Street Journal columnist, editorial board member, and senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, Jason Riley, joins me now, and he recently wrote an opinion piece called "Good Riddance to racial gerrymandering."
Thank you for being here, and you write racial gerrymandering advocates advocates today assume that black voters are essentially fungible and share identical political preferences.
That's not only false, but insulting.
Can you elaborate?
Uh sure. Uh the the the thinking behind um racial gerrymandering today is that um black uh candidates can't get elected uh because whites won't vote for them.
Therefore, we need to racially gerrymander voting districts so that there are enough black constituencies to elect black officials.
Um I think this thinking has been out of date for some time.
Uh we had uh uh nearly 20 years ago a black president elected in a majority white country.
And then he was reelected.
And in in 2008, Barack Obama outperformed both Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2024 in 2004, I'm sorry.
Among white voters in southern states including Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Virginia, and so forth.
We've had black mayors of majority white cities.
We've had black governors of majority white states.
So, I think this whole thinking behind the Voting Rights Act and racial gerrymandering that suggests that that only black officials can represent black constituencies is is way out of date.
In fact, today most of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus do not hail from majority black districts.
There's one thing I want to ask you about in your piece in which you write that political gerrymandering is unseemly because it amounts to lawmakers choosing voters instead of the other way around, but it's legal.
So, why only be against racial gerrymandering and not gerrymandering as a whole?
Well, I am and that's what I was getting at in that statement.
I don't like gerrymandering as a whole because essentially it allows the politicians to pick their voters instead of the other way around.
It also I think exacerbates our political divisions because it it sort of insulates incumbents.
It creates safe seats.
And what that means is that the only real election that matters is the primary.
And whoever wins the primary almost automatically wins the general election.
And when you campaign in a primary and only have to appeal to most extreme members of your constituency, I think that's reflected in the rhetoric you use and how you govern.
So, I don't I don't think gerrymandering in general is good for our system, but I'm especially opposed to racial gerrymandering.
I mean, the Supreme Court has said that gerrymandering in general is legal, is constitutional, however unseemly it is to me.
What it has also said, however, is that gerrymandering on the basis of race in the absence of of evidence, direct evidence of discrimination, is unconstitutional and illegal.
So, there's a distinction that the Supreme Court has made.
Jason Riley, thank you.
Thank you.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.