It's day 26 of the government shutdown, which is the second longest in US history, and it all hinges on whether lawmakers can reach an agreement on health care subsidies. Now, Democrats want a bill that extends tax credits for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Right now, Republicans are refusing to extend those credits, which will expire at the end of the year.And if those subsidies do expire, and because President Trump already made cuts to Medicaid earlier this year, insurance premiums will ...

Political Landscape & Legal Considerations - Republicans perceive a disadvantage due to blue states' map overperformance and Texas' underperformance, necessitating action from Texas [1] - The prevailing side of the bill disregards the DOJ letter, focusing instead on improving political performance [2] - The bill's foundation lies in enhancing political performance, irrespective of the DOJ's stance [2] - The legality and fairness of the map are defended on the grounds of being politically, not racially, motivated [1] Demographic & Representational Concerns - Texas is now a 60% people of color state, a demographic reality not reflected in existing or proposed maps [3] - Concerns exist regarding a potential "jurymander on top of a jurymander," both racially based [4] - The maps are perceived as failing to accurately represent the demographic composition of Texas [4]

Legal & Ethical Concerns - The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an impartial jury trial, meaning jurors free of biases [1][11] - Striking a juror based on race is unconstitutional, as per Batson v Kentucky [5][6] - Systemic barriers to becoming a juror, such as felony disenfranchisement, narrow the jury pool and may not reflect an impartial jury [11][12] - Prosecutorial overzealousness to engineer outcomes, not seek justice, violates the Sixth Amendment [10] Case Examples & Legislation - Curtis Flowers was tried six times for the same crime due to the prosecutor continually striking black jurors; the Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 2019 [7][8] - In Alameda County, California, prosecutors allegedly struck jurors they believed were Jewish due to the belief they would oppose the death penalty [9][10] - The California Racial Justice Act (2020) enables challenges to discrimination in convictions, jury selection, sentencing, and charging [5][13] - Tommy Bonds III case highlights racial profiling, where an officer admitted to stopping him partly because he was black [14][15][16] Call to Action - It is important to challenge discrimination and injustice, even when losing, to push for change [6][16] - Conversations about race, though uncomfortable, are important inside and outside of the courtroom [18]