Supreme Court strikes down North Carolina congressional district maps

Perhaps you should try reading what the justices actually said and did instead of just making stuff up? that is very clearly covered in the op[ion which you apparently did not read.

SPC Kevin Ford - Actually they did find the initial creation of District 12 problematic, and they even noted that in this decision. And your telling me to read the decision??
And of the two districts in question, the only one that was really significantly altered was District 1, and in that case it was land size alteration. I would also suggest that besides reading the current decision on its own, that you actually take a look at the NC district maps and read the previous Supreme Court decisions on these same districts from 1992.
Here is a link to a Wikipedia article showing the NC district maps dating back to 1973.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina%27s_congressional_districts
One additional fact - I and my family also contributed to this mess, since we lived in NC for the 1990 Census (actually we lived there from 1989 to 1996) at 218 Stacy Weaver Drive, Fayetteville, NC 28311. To be honest, I actually do not remember if we were living in District 1, 7, or 8 after the lines were redrawn due to the 1992 Supreme Court decision. We missed the 1996/97 decision and redrawing because we left in early to mid 1996, after I retired. So I think that I also have first hand experience in the earlier days of this issue.

SSG Robert Webster - You say that only one district was significantly altered then point to land maps. That is a poor way to understand districting. Indeed your contention that only one was significantly altered flies in opposition to the findings of fact in the case:

"Prior to that redistricting, neither district had a majority black voting-age
population (BVAP), but both consistently elected the candidates preferred by most African-American voters. The new map significantly altered both District 1 and District 12."

SPC Kevin Ford - JFC, look at the maps and the progression of changes. Also read the various court decisions. The only time that District 12 did not look like itself was in 1999 - 2000; other than that it has pretty much remained the same following the same geographic pattern as laid down in 1992. District 1 on the other hand has really corkscrewed all over the place, but the established base of the district really has not changed since the 1992 change.
Poor understanding of congressional districting, in this case I definitely have an understanding of it. As far as the BVAP remark, that is correct, however there is a lot more to it than that and in this decision the Justices admitted to that and stated so when they covered the history of NC re-districting court cases where this is the fifth time in 25 years that this has been in front of the Supreme Court.
I would also suggest that you read up and learn about Melvin Watt, the long time District 12 Representative and his hand in all of this.

SPC Kevin Ford - I read the decisions yesterday, and it may surprise you but I agree with both. I would hesitate before assigning "intent and motive" as these are usually a reflection of the person making the accusation more than the accused.

1stSgt Nelson Kerr - No conspiracy, just trying to do away with race-based decisions throughout society - they are insulting IMO whether coming for the Right or the Left. Thomas has always tried to rule in a color-blind fashion which is why the Left refers to him in the most vilest of terms, but there's no surprise here to me.

SPC Kevin Ford - If you read into the decision, you will note that the changes were made to be accepted by the Obama Justice Department, who had to clear them before going into effect:

"Specifically, Rucho and Lewis explained that because part of Guilford County, a jurisdiction covered by §5 of the VRA, lay in the district, they had increased the district’s BVAP to ensure preclearance of the plan. Dr. Thomas Hofeller, their hired mapmaker, confirmed that intent. The State’s preclearance submission to the Justice Department indicated a similar determination to concentrate black voters in District 12."

But go ahead and believe whichever spin appeals to you the most. The important thing to note is the VRA is slowly being dismantled, and that, IMO, is a good thing. It has outlived its usefulness, only serves to perpetuate the disparate treatment of a person according to his/her race, and has become ripe for abuse on both sides.

LTC Stephen B. - To be clear I'm not saying that the justice department doesn't make mistakes or is all seeing. People who want to do things that are not necessarily in the spirit of the law will sometime try to use it as a justification to do what they wanted to anyway. In this case they tried to use the VRA to claim that their motive was something other than it was.

Time and time again certain states it seems have a long history of trying to enact laws for the primary purpose of reducing the voting power of minorities. This same state had a voter ID law struck down due to the racial targeting it represented as well. My larger point being is that probably removing the stricter scrutiny on these states wasn't a great idea even if it wasn't always perfect.