on this as well, that this was created by the Dems and directed by the DOJ in '93 as a majority minority district. And that the GOP used the Dems' own game after the 2010 census to redistrict to make it an even more majority minority district. I guess this means we must have majority minority districts, just not TOO majority. Can't explain why the courts have a problem with it now, but didn't in '93. In addition, what I understand is that SCOTUS simply ruled that Forbes, Whittman, etc. didn't have standing to bring that case forward (trying to undo the court's redistricting which overrode what the GA did) because they were not harmed simply because they had more Dem voters in their district now.

But none of that changes that it was the Dems that created this district, and the Clinton DOJ that forced this and other majority minority districts around the country, not the GOPers trying to put all them black folk in special districts as you tried to represent it in your biased political "rant". :-)

BTW, just to be clear, I agree with you. I'm glad SCOTUS' decision allowed the court's more realistic redistricting to stand, and that straight lined districts are a good thing. I hate the stupid redistricting games going on solely to lock down power going forward based on district configuration rather than policies and ideas. I hope/expect this will have repercussions on all these obscure districts (apparently NC has a particularly absurd one) around the country, thus forcing pols to appeal to a broader base of voters rather than the narrow extremes. And yes, I'm fully prepared to hear you lefties going on more "rants" about the lack of majority minority districts again going forward.