Below is my column in the Hill on the decision in Louisiana v. Callais and the false narrative that the Supreme Court majority was motivated by the midterm elections. The case barring racial gerrymandering was the capstone of years of opinions from figures from Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and others to restore a colorblind constitution.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, barring racial gerrymandering, has many on the left feigning vapors, despite the predictions of many of us that this result was likely.
While figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared that the court itself has been “gerrymandered” to rig the upcoming elections, this decision is actually the culmination of decades of jurisprudence by various justices — particularly Chief Justice John Roberts.
Indeed, the decision will cement the legacy of the Roberts Court in moving the country toward a colorblind system of laws.
Like most Americans, Roberts abhors racial discrimination in any form. He holds the quaint idea that when the drafters of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of race, they meant it. This is why, in 2006, Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Roberts sees no difference between such discrimination when it disfavors one or another race. It is all a sordid business, and he has spent decades writing eloquent arguments for the court to abandon its conflicted and hypocritical approach to racial discrimination.
For example, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court divided five to four on whether to uphold racial admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Few of us could understand how O’Connor found a type of expiration date on permissible racial criteria in the Constitution.
Throughout that period, however, certain justices held firm that there is a bright-line rule against such racial criteria. That includes the author of the court’s Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito, but also Roberts, who in 2007, put it succinctly: “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
One can certainly disagree with this interpretation and the low tolerance for racial criteria. However, this had nothing to do with the midterm elections. It is the result of dozens of opinions building up to this point.
From college admissions to gerrymandering, the court has created the bright line that figures like Roberts have long sought. In doing so, they have moved this country closer to a colorblind jurisprudence than at any time in our history.
The Biden administration was found repeatedly to have violated the Constitution through racial discrimination in federal programs. Democratic leaders have fought this trend and have pledged to reverse these decisions. Some even demand that Democrats pack the Court with a liberal majority as soon as they retake power.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that whites cannot be placed under additional burdens when bringing discrimination lawsuits.
Much of the coverage of the Callais decision is long on rhetoric and short on substance. The court did not “gut” the Voting Rights Act. It also did not strike down Section 2 of the act. Rather, the court held that neither the act nor the Constitution gives legislators authority to manipulate districts so as to effectively guarantee the race of the elected representatives — any race.
For decades, the courts have faced endless litigation over district configurations designed to elect minority representatives. It is a system that gave candidates an advantage based solely on their race. The court held that such racial gerrymandering is unlawful. The Voting Rights Act will now be read to prevent intentional racial discrimination. Courts will still bar any districts designed “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
That does not mean that racial discrimination has been eliminated in our nation, or that we do not need to commit ourselves wholly to its eradication. The stain of slavery and segregation remains with us, as does the lingering scourge of racial prejudice. African Americans and other minorities still face invidious discrimination that cannot be tolerated in our system. We still have much work to be done.
In the area of voting rights, the courts have and will continue to strike down any rules designed to suppress or block minority voters.
Despite this ongoing struggle with racism, there are reasons to be hopeful. As the Rev. Martin Luther King put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Non-whites are now powerful players in American politics. White voters are expected to be a minority in this country within two decades.
We have now elected a black president and a black vice president. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (who declared the Court “illegitimate” after the Callais opinion) expects to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.
This progress was hard-fought, and both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act played important roles in achieving greater racial diversity in our society.
And the Callais decision is also part of that progress. We are moving into a new era where racial criteria and discrimination are neither rationalized nor tolerated. There is now reason to hope that we will indeed end “this sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
I’m not sure why Roberts refuses to acknowledge that the spirit of Brown v Board was one of anti-subordination rather than color-blindness. He should get with the program aka punishing whites for hewing advanced civilization out of a cruel wilderness. The arc of history is long and it bends towards resource re-allocation at the point of a bayonet.
SCOTUS did not outlaw racial gerrymandering. They made it worse. Now states can just say their racial maps are for partisan reasons and that makes them legal. What SCOTUS did was make those maps very hard to challenge. SCOTUS gave the green light for southern states to intentionally gerrymander blacks out of office. This is just like Jim Crow.
Where are the Hispanic districts? The Oriental districts? Do they, as minorities in this country, deserve their own “Gerry-mandered” districts?
Wait, So now minorities and majorities will be allowed to live near each other and be friendly neighbors??? The dems CANNOT stand for this unity!
drawing lines means nothing about housing mobility — but in case you actually care redlining largely created the segregated system of neighborhood homogeneity.
That is baloney. SCOTUS said you can’t use race as the basis for engineering a district. Quite simple. You are just making stuff up.
Of course states can use race as a factor. Racial and partisan maps look the same, so all states need to do is claim partisanship. Just look at how quickly southern states are redrawing maps to eliminate black districts.
Not as fast as Dems redrew them to create black districts?
OK, but SCOTUS will allow using factors that CORRELATE WITH race. So, how can anyone tell what the true motivation is? Best guess?……it’s Dems vs. Repubs.
Incorrect.
What the Supreme court has correctly determined is that Race can not be a factor in the actions of Governments.
A state can not consider race AT ALL in its actions.
Evidence that race was a factor in any way would result in the map being thrown out.
Will this “disenfranchise” some black democrat politicians – absolutely.
They will be replaced by politicians that actually represent them – who may or may not be black.
I do not expect the impact on minority represenation to be significant.
There are plenty of black republicans in congress, and there likely will be more now.
But I do expect that this might cost democrats 12 seats int he house of representatives – this ends the political gerymandering of the left using race as cover.
The concept of “black representation” and “white representation” and “somali representation” and soon “trans representation” will be blurred and then disappear to be replaced by “person representation” all with the exact same rights and responsibilities? dems must be in absolute panic, their votes now might be good for America.
There is zero doubt that this ruling will cause less black people to get elected, even though the percentage of black voters will not change. And most white southerners would rather eat horse shit than vote for a black person.
I guess Tim Scott and Byron Donalds are miracles or something.
Square that with the 1982 amendment to the VRA. Requiring proof intent was not the clear intent of Congress.
For originalists and textualists, like Alito, the historical record used to mean something when interpreting laws. Not anymore.
Number for calif dems?
It’s insane. They’re considering mayor Bass again? That’s how insane and destructive it is.
Indeed the vast gibmedat NGO network constructed by libtards has made it quite difficult to execute the racial / political disentangling Alito wants here. Once again the left sews seeds of utter chaos and labels anyone who attempts to unwind their programs a “nazi fascism white supremacist what have you”
I guess we will just take a states’s word that the future gerrymandering won’t be racist, we won’t bother to check on their plans because they wouldn’t dare violate this scotus ruling right?
Don’t worry dems, There’s still lots of other identities ripe for division, no need to contort what this ruling means: the end of dems use of race to divide our country, just like they did so long ago at the cost of many lives.
Sally, you’re full of it. Southern states have NO INTEREST in intentionally gerrymandering blacks out of office. Why would they? Your entire premise that they would want to do that, and that they will do it now that they can get away with it, shows that YOU are the bigot, full of baseless and vicious hatred for Southerners. There is not a shred of evidence for it.
States can “just say” their maps are based on partisan rather than racial motives, because everyone knows it’s true. If you want to assert that a map was drawn for racial motives YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT, just like you have to prove any other accusation of wrongdoing that you make against people.
When a state draws lines so that one race is vastly disproportionately represented, that is racist. Congress explicitly said that one does not have to prove racist intent, just racist effect. SCOTUS killed that to make it harder. Partisan maps are a fig leaf for racist maps.
Sally, you have it exactly backwards. The requirement of majority minority districts in red states to approach proportional representation is Democrat-favoring partisan gerrymandering pretending to be protection against racism. If Section 2 of the VRA requires that it goes beyond the authority conferred on Congress by the 15th amendment (which prohibits only intentional discrimination) and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
The outcome of this decision will likely be fewer Democratic representatives in red states. Whether this is good or bad for the black populations of those states remains to be seen. While they were siloed in Democratic Party districts they were largely unable to influence the policies of Republican candidates. Now they will be able to do so. And the idea that white majorities only elect white candidates is demonstrably false. A number of black Republican Congressmen have been elected in white majority districts.
Sally, are there any Jewish districts in New York or FL? Any Hispanic districts in TX or CA? Any Mormon districts in Utah? Any German districts in PA? Any Polish districts in Chicago? Any Asian districts on the west coast? Why the need for Black districts?
A glowing review for the same man who agreed that Americans should be “taxed” for NOT BUYING health insurance? What dirt does Roberts have on you, Professor?
Stop lying. Roberts never expressed an opinion on what Americans should be taxed for. That’s not a judge’s business. Congress and Congress alone decides what it wants to tax, and the constitution says it can do that. Roberts merely recognized the FACT that that’s what Congress in fact did, regardless of what the politicians claimed they were doing. The decision stood for a fundamental principle of US law: Politicians lie, so the courts must base their decisions on what the politicians DO, not on what they SAY they’ve done.
And no, the 0bamacare “mandate” was NOT a tax on not buying insurance. It’s impossible to tax something that doesn’t exist. It was a tax on income, with an exemption for those who bought insurance.
So ‘fee’ and ‘tax’ have the same definition? News to me.
No, they don’t have the same definition, and “fee” wasn’t even an option. The question was whether it was a tax or a penalty. And Roberts proved conclusively that using every single criterion that distinguishes the two concepts, the payment fit the definition of a tax and not that of a penalty. Literally the ONLY reason anyone claimed it was a penalty and not a tax is because the politicians who enacted it said so; and the beauty of Roberts’s opinion is that it established as a matter of law that politicians lie and are not to be trusted.
Milhouse, I guess when I get pulled over for speeding I will be paying a “tax”??
Milhouse – Sorry Roberts is a poor justice. He saved Obamacare twice – in two different opinions that can not be reconciled with each other.
With respect to your argument – according to Roberts Obamacare IS a tax – otherwise it would be unconstitutional.
At the same time it is NOT a tax – because tax bills have to originate in the House and PPACA originated in the senate – The House was FORCED to pass unchanged the Senate version of the bill, because when Senator Kennedy died and MA elected Scott – Democrats had to go with the Bill exactly as it passed the senate when Kennedy voted for it.
So according to Roberts PPACA is constitutional only because it IS a tax, and at the same time – is NOT a tax otherwise it would have been passed unconstitutionally.
Separately – PPACA was passed by democrats as the means to “fix” the unaffordability of health insurance.
PPACA is costing us $2T/decade – it is a significant factor in the national debt, it is nearly as large a factor as the Afghan and Iraq wars, or Covid.
Yet here we are once again with health insurance unaffordable.
The FACT is that PPACA made healthcare and therefore health insurance MORE expensive,
PPACA is a subsidy and all subsidies eventually get entirely consumed by the market.
This should not surprise anyone. This is also why education – both college and elementary costs ever more and gets ever worse.
There is one and only one thing in existance that reduces the costs of anything – and that is truly free markets.
John, the bill that was passed as PPACA originated in the House, not in the Senate. The version the House originally passed had nothing to do with health insurance; it was on some other topic, but the senate amended it, as it is entitled to do.
And Roberts was correct that it WAS a tax and not a penalty. Have you read the decision? Its reasoning is unassailable.
As for its utter failure as a matter of policy, that was none of Roberts’s business. Congress passed it, so we have to live with it and its consequences. It would have been wrong for the court to overturn it just because it was such a terrible idea.
I’m not a fan of the second PPACA decision; I’m only defending the first one, NFIB v Sibelius, and only the first and third parts of that. I would have struck it down as a direct tax.
As I recall, it was a tax on income even if someone didn’t have enough income to be taxed.
Nope. It was a tax on income actually earned, above a certain threshold and below a certain threshold (i.e. there was a maximum level beyond which you no longer had to pay any more). Buying insurance got you an exemption from it. Too cute by half, and disastrous as a matter of policy, but it was constitutional.
He’s done some good stuff but yeah the sebelius tightrope walking was idiotic
Competency rules. Amen.
Was the rare move for reargument [1] in helping DEMs to minimize the redistricting impacts for the 2026 midterms the price Alito paid to get him the five votes? [2]
Timeline:
7/30/24: Petitions to hear the cases.
11/4/24: Certiorari granted, cases consolidated.
3/25/25: Oral arguments were heard
6/27/25: SCOTUS restored the case to the calendar for reargument [1]
10/15/25: Oral arguments were heard for a 2nd time.
4/29/26: Ruling
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-109_l53m.pdf
[2] https://thefederalist.com/2026/05/01/scotus-decision-striking-down-racial-gerrymandering-shows-alito-plays-the-long-game/
[Mollie Hemingway – Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief] Dose it suggest Alito was ‘Gerrymandering the Docket’ (by Playing the “Long Game” in this matter)?
All nine Jurist have the same ability (to manipulate as Alito has), thus each Case is like a Game-of-Thrones as to the outcome of final Opinion.
I would rather defer to Dr. Nash (John Nash – Nash equilibrium, a solution concept for non-cooperative games) in that each Case is involved in a Court of Zero-Sum Game(s).
[reconsider – M. Hemingway @ thefederalist.com ]
The fundamental questions to be answered are 1) what is the “minority” in any given district and 2) what is the definition of “white”.
Albino or integrated Rainbow.
Neither of those questions have to be answered, because it no longer matters. Everyone is now to be treated equally, so these terms are meaningless.
Incorrect – those “questions” can not be considered at all by government. This decision restores the 14th amendment.
Race in ANY form CAN NOT be a factor in ANY government act.
Can kbj be impeached?
Harris broke the tie.
Time has demonstrated, quite clearly, that The Great Society was not particularly great. It has caused far more damage to our nation than it has improved our lot. I thought that the Left was once ‘good’ and only in recent decades became demented but in retrospect it was always evil.
Watch the ****show long enough and the Game of (phony) Narratives becomes obvious. Even Trump is disappointing now.
I listened to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s speech on the Senate floor in which he spoke eloquently and clearly, predicting the exact situation we see today. Despite his opposition the “Great Society Act” was rammed through, oddly enough, with Republican help. The “Dixiecrats” were vehemently against it. Moynihan was right.
Ours is a meritocratic society — without discrimination based on merit, our way of life could not be possible. The challenge is that perceptions of merit, competence and trust are somewhat subjective. We’ve all seen hiring managers prefer giving the job to someone more familiar…..more “compatible”.
Rarely recognized is that all humans are born with self-similarity preference. This cognitive research with newborn infants in the 1990s (Karen Wynn, Neha Mahajin) was censored by the academic left, sensing deep panic that such results would undermine their “racism is 100% a social construct” belief. The truth is that we are all born with legacy social instincts that can get in the way of a post-racial meritocracy, especially in stressful, high-stakes situations. It takes learned impulse control to overcome unwarranted race-related fear….it takes courage.
Maybe now that Ibrim X. Kendi, Robin DiAngelo and DEI have peaked, we can start having an honest, science-based conversation about race and meritocracy. It might just be possible to brush aside all the ideological bs, and focus on how to perfect a post-racial meritocracy….proactively. Chief Justice Roberts’s dictum only addresses what NOT TO DO — it’s assumption that discriminatory behavior is 100% under willful conscious control is blind to reality: human behavior is partially automatic.
Coming to the better place Justice O’Connor envisioned for the 2020s begins with understanding how the half of human behavior that is automatic works. That realm is the last frontier to perfecting post-racial meritocracy.
“Ours is a meritocratic society — without discrimination based on merit, our way of life could not be possible. The challenge is that perceptions of merit, competence and trust are somewhat subjective. We’ve all seen hiring managers prefer giving the job to someone more familiar…..more “compatible”.”
The function of a free market is to allow the customer to compare the relative merit of services and products. That merit, in reality and perception, is ultimately determined by, among other factors, the corporate culture to which you refer. The best way to achieve and preserve a meritocracy is for the government to refrain from laws, regulations and activities that undermine that market mechanism, to the fullest extent possible.
Setting out to ‘perfect’ things is how we get big trouble.
Would you accept “improve things”? We are a nation of improvers….it’s in our DNA. Fatalists and defeatists R NOT US.
Since the ’60s, the US has made more progress in race relations than any other country, altho I think we’ve been backsliding since Obama’s 2nd term.
Pb, that’s when applying the law is crucial. Private lives and property remain.
Callais is a correct decision. Its technical basis is that the VRA implements the 15th amendment, which establishes a right against intentional discrimination not disparate impact. So Section 2 cannot be interpreted to establish a new right that the 15th amendment does not entail. If it does, it lacks authority and also violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
The oddity here is that Roberts and Kavanaugh rejected this exact argument definitively in Allen v Milligan, the Alabama case of just a few years ago. Thomas in his dissent made this argument persuasively but Roberts and Kavanaugh disagreed They also rejected virtually every other argument they now embrace in Callais. Kagan’s dissent points this out in gleeful detail. She is right. It is impossible to reconcile the reasoning in Allen with that of Callais. It is hard to understand how Roberts and Kavanaugh signed on to both.
Alabama is now seeking a dispensation from the Allen requirement to have a second majority minority district, in the light of Callais. It should be granted.
In my view, Professor Turley is wrong to attribute this positive change to Roberts. Thomas and Alito are the real forces at work here.
Thank you.
Roberts is lily-livered and Kavanaugh has no guts at all. What a waste of two ciswhitemale slots.
Roberts in fact wrote the court’s opinion in Allen v Milligan which demanded just a few years ago that Alabama use race to draw a second black majority district to get to proportional representation. How he could do that and then join the majority in Callais is beyond me.
A diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
The price of gas on February 28, 2026 = $4.46
The price of gas May 4, 2026 = $2.98
DJT promised to lower gas prices. According to my math $4.46 is greater than $2.98 and May 4 is after Feb 28.
DJT sure has a demented definition of “Winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, winning it, …”
Wrong blog anon.
First, why is this post here?
Second, either you transposed the dates or the dollar amounts, as they do not support your claim.
Do better, Anonymous.
With a post like that, I’d also want to be anonymous.
Thank you for pointing out how DJT lies through his teeth every day. And you all soak it up. Happy that gas prices are higher? Oh excuse me, trump said they are lower so I guess they are lower. Which is it?
ha ha ha ha They are lower now you say! ANON losing it, losing it, losing it…..
$4.46 is cheaper than the spike we had Jan 2022 which was during Biden at $5.03. And according to my math, $5.03 is greater than $4.46. Stop your whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining whining . . .
Gas at Wawa in NJ where I live was $4.49/gal for regular yesterday.
June 2022, gas 5.07 average – no war, just stupid D polices, kind of like yours. Irrelevant posts off topic, low thought.
Re: “The price of gas on February 28, 2026 = $4.46 The price of gas May 4, 2026 = $2.98″ The per gallon cost of gasoline has more to do with where one lives than the price of oil I paid $4.05/gal at a Chevron near me which was $.04 less expensive than the big box store right next to it and .$.25/gallon less than the two locations I customarily frequent. The same fuel can be had for a $1 or more per gallon elsewhere in the county such as another Chevron station about 2 miles north of me which has sported the most outrageous cost/gallon for the past nearly 20 years I’m living here. We wonder how they remain afloat. My memories of gas rationing go as far back as WWII and the curious lock on the fuel ports back in the day. I wonder at the cojones the present generations would have compared to the trials ‘The Greatest Generation” struggled through and prevailed in to guarantee the freedoms enjoyed this day. They tightened their belts and made it happen. Iran is the ‘Third Reich’ of the present day and would see its hegemony hold sway not only the Middle East, but export it to the rest of the world as more than 1000 years of past history of that culture and its madness have proved and were needed to be beaten back time after time. When one looks at Europe presently it is clear that George Santayana’s wise counsel has fallen on deaf ears. As Thomas Sowell has observed: ““Europe is belatedly discovering how unbelievably stupid it was to import millions of people from cultures that despise Western values and which often promote hatred toward the people who have let them in.”
Highest nation wide gas price per gallon under Obama? 2011 3.96 adjusted for inflation $5.81
Highest nation wide gas price per gallon under Obama? 2011 5.06 adjusted for inflation $7.43
Yes vote Democrat if you want $8-$10 dollar a gallon gas.
There is nowhere near where I live that Gas costs $4 or more.
But it DID when Biden was president.
The FED Altanta’s GDPnow has the increase in standard of living in Q2 2026 at 3.5%
There is little doubt that Americans would be doing even better financially if this thus far short conflict had not occured.
But it is FALSE to claim that they are doing worse than before it started.
Most americans are willing to endure less improvement for a short period in return for an end to Iran as a destabalizing force in the world.
The big questions – that can not be answered yet, and that will determine the ACTUAL impact on the midterms is
Are:
Is this conflict really going to be short ?
Will it accomplish the goal of reducing the destabalizing impact of Iran on the world ?
If the answer to either of those is no – then republicans will be in serious trouble.
But I would not bet on that.
The Iran conflict has taken peoples attention off of ICE and immigration.
This is bad for the left. Supremajorities support enforcing our existing immigration laws.
But they do nto wish to see tear jerk stories about it on the news.
Deportations are continuing – if anything likely accelerating as Trump has had numerous great appelate and scotus rulings removing left wing nut obstacles.
The conflict has taken peoples attention off the Epstain Files – which were never going to “get Trump”,
But the left still successfully painted what should have been a massive problem for THEM into a problem for Trump.
“The stain of . . . segregation remains with us . . .” (JT)
Here is the absurdity of the Left’s position:
Segregation is wrong — unless it’s used to corral blacks into a particular voting district.
Anyone care to explain the “logic” of that?
And corralling whites into majority black or Hispanic districts is equality? That is the absurdity of the white supremacist position. That about right?
I think the point went over your head.
divvying up by race is wrong. Period. So yes, corralling anyone based on race is wrong.
Why are you labeling the idea of moving into a post-race society as “white supremacist”? That makes no sense.
“I think the point went over your head.”
A common malady for those with their heads in the sand.
“That makes no sense.”
Common sense, aka logic and consistency, are not the Left’s strong suit.
“I think the point went over your head.” Creed of the liberal troll.
There has been black preference under equal opportunity for over 60 years. If blacks haven’t caught up yet it is their own fault, no one else’s fault.
Re: “Anyone care to explain the “logic” of that?” More generally, all of the tribalistic pontifications with respect to diversity in whatever package it is wrapped in is justified when it works in favor those pursing power, and vilified when it does not. Biden subscribed to this when he made his VP and SCOTUS choices. The black power brokers and race baiters dare not facilitate the folks rising to be the best of the best for then that lot will finally have been found to be negative for stupid and the likes of the Mayor of Chicago will have to seek another row to hoe.
Has anyone seen george?
This might scare him.
__________________
The U.S. Air Force has finished modifying and testing a Boeing 747 jet donated by Qatar for temporary use as Air Force One and expects to have it ready for President Donald Trump to use this summer, the service announced late Friday.
Crawl back under your rock man.
^^^^George
Did I hurt you’re feeling george?
It’s about the time. The voting rights act and the civil rights act of the 1960’s were a necessary step in achieving a reasonable right to parity in all decisions. And it achieved its purpose. We made incredible progress over the intervening decades until Mr Obama, who tried to take us back to the 1940’s-1960’s in race relations. To him it seemed like everything became about race when his own election gave the lie to what he was preaching. The racial gerrymandering was necessary for a time but like rotten fish and family members who won’t go home, it started to smell badly and was just another crutch to prop up racial discrimination.
Time to go. Now, hopefully, representatives will focus on all the members of their districts and tailor their politics and programs to a race blind society.
There will still be discrimination but you will have to prove it, not assume it .
Take us back to MLK Jr and judge each and every one us by the strength of our character and not the color of our skin.
Progress? What progress, where non-white voters are overwhelmed by white voters in districts? That’s not discrimination? Parity? You reek of a white supremacist.
Class-disordered ideologies (e.g. racism, sexism) under the DEIst umbrella.
Seems you would prefer the reverse, where white voters (who are presumed by you to always vote the same way) are overwhelmed by non-white voters (who are also assumed by you to always vote the same but opposite way) in districts. Do I have that right?
You aren’t even trying to make a coherent argument.
If white voters are overwhelmed by nonwhite voters is that not discrimination? Why does the race of the voter matter? Virginia just overwhelmed black voting districts with white liberals. But no one addresses that because those districts will still elect Democrats.
In oral arguments for Callais the NAACP attorney argued that white liberals will not vote for black democrats. That sounds like an issue within the Dems own tent. But not a surprise from the party of slavery and Jim Crow.
Re:” That sounds like an issue within the Dems own tent.”…..and far more profound for the nation at large if the best of the best consistently turns up a paleface. One needs to look well beyond complexion to turn that one around. They should carefully examine whether or not affirmative action et al merely satisfies the requirements of the Peter Principle. When one considers the career of Kamala Harris, it is clear. https://www.campusreform.org/article/kamala-harris-admitted-law-school-economic-hardship-program-despite-parents-working-college-profs/26657
Exactly! Well stated.
when do we eliminate the absurd hate crime designation…where only blacks and gays are protected.
Pretty sure when a white man kills a white woman….he HATES HER, etc!
So you think the killing a black or a gay is not a hate crime? Your words are a hate crime.
Killing a white person is not a hate crime. Killing a black person is a hate crime. Figure that out, please.
A black killing a black is not a hate crime. A white killing a black is a hate crime. Figure that out, please.
How about a black killing a white.
Virtually ALL intentional homicides are driven by emotions: jealousy, greed, envy, revenge, anger, etc. Why are intentional homicides driven by “hate” given a special category – and often punished more harshly than other intentional homicides?
If you have the intellectual capacity, please try to offer a cogent logical argument. Thanks.
Anon, emotions you’ve listed are vices. Interesting that emotions cloud “reason”.
I’ll need to keep working on it.
People of Black aborting each other in urbane sanctuaries. Trans (e.g. homos, sims), too.
So only white people kill out of hate, that about, regardless if the victim is female?
Guyventner: when do we eliminate the absurd hate crime designation…where only blacks and gays are protected.
That’s an outright lie. We can’t eliminate something that has never existed.
Hate crime laws are right and just, and they are administered completely fairly. They will never be eliminated, so long as hatred exists and motivates people to commit crimes, i.e. forever.
Anon 8:04: So you think the killing a black or a gay is not a hate crime? Your words are a hate crime.
Most crimes against black or gay people are not hate crimes, and are not charged as hate crimes. Some crimes are hate crimes, and some of those are against black or gay people while others are against white people, Jews, and others.
Anon 8:25: Killing a white person is not a hate crime. Killing a black person is a hate crime. Figure that out, please.
There’s nothing to figure out, because you’re lying. That is not and has never been the case.
Anon 8:31: Virtually ALL intentional homicides are driven by emotions:
So what?
Why are intentional homicides driven by “hate” given a special category – and often punished more harshly than other intentional homicides?
Because they are much worse and deserve to be treated more severely.
Your first fallacy is that hate crime laws are not primarily about homicides. Homicides are usually treated with the utmost severity anyway. Hate crime laws are primarily about lesser crimes, which are not always treated as severely as they could be. In such cases the motive makes much more of a difference.
Your second fallacy is that you (deliberately?) misstate what hate crime laws punish. They don’t punish all crimes that are motivated by any kind of hatred whatsoever. They punish crimes that are motivated by hatred for an entire class of people, rather than just for the immediate victim. In such cases the immediate victim is not the only victim. All members of the targeted class are victims of a crime committed out of hatred for that class. Therefore, not only are crimes with such a motive inherently more heinous, they also have many more victims and thus do more harm, which in turn earns a harsher sentence.
Every normal person understands that a graffitist spraying his tag on a warehouse is a minor offense, deserving of a minor sentence, while someone spraying a swastika on a synagogue, which is the same exact crime but for a different motive, is a much more severe offense and deserves a higher sentence.
That is why motive has always been a factor in sentencing, long before we had hate crime laws. But before those laws it was entirely up to the judge’s discretion, and the judge could determine the motive on his own. What hate crime laws do is formalize the sentence enhancement as a factor the judge must take into consideration, but also they require the prosecutor to prove the motive to the jury.
The Supreme Court said simply this: a race-based system of voting is not a constitutional cure for a different race-based system of voting.
Correct. Thank you.
equality will be the end of the democrat party.
No victims to pander to, just everyone living in a great country.
In other words the democrat’s nightmare.
More to the point, it will require candidates of any party to convince voters of the wisdom of their positions. A Democrat’s nightmare, indeed, especially in states where partisan gerrymandering hasn’t been set like concrete for decades.
Who can forget the quotation from LBJ about “having [our black citizens] voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” Looks like he was right.
nice sanitizing of the quote!
Only the race-baiters and race-hustlers are going crazy over this ruling.
That you would think that, puts you in that category too.
It seems that sordid business is the only business preferred by the Democrats. A short list of their sordid businesses accepted are these big six. a. Open borders. b. Voting rights for noncitizens. c. Medicare and USAID fraud. d. Defunding police. e. Packing the court. f. General lawfare. Trump and SCOTUS have merely served up a delay that the Dems are hoping will be a short one.
We might add weakening our military and our arms industry, gutting our energy sector, censoring dissent and radicalizing our colleges and now our high schools, middle schools and elementary schools.
And don’t forget Balkanizing our population, their major means to their ends.
All of these are the principal planks of the 2028 Democratic platform, all of them never to be in print.
It seems to me you have a paranoid perception of events. I guess its typical of rightists. Seeing boogeymen where there are none. Is liberalism really a mental problem, or, as you portray things, seems conservativism is a mental problem.
You’re right. Conservatives are a cult in the USA. Just think about who they consider normal… Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson, etc. Ironic how the crazies here think they’re the normal ones.
reminder the left think a man can become a woman? Tucker and Candice are entertainers…not conservatives.
Reminder, if you think that is all a liberal is, then you have a cognitive problem.
So just entertainers you say? And Kimmel is just an entertainer too and yet Trump wants him destroyed?
You’re not exactly a normal voice on this blog.
And what exactly is Turley, an entertainer too?
Owens and Carlson are not conservative, nor are they normal.
That might be true if Republicans actually endorsed them after their craziness was exposed. Instead, they’ve be roundly rejected by PDJT and his supporters.
Keep in mind the societal ascendancy of Blacks was at its greatest prior to the passage of LBJ’s Great Society. The great Thomas Sowell wrote:
https://capitalismmagazine.com/2004/08/war-on-poverty-revisited/
As someone who lived through these turnings, like Sowell, I don’t see the great results that were promised.
The end result, many more deserving Whites were denied opportunities and that weakened our country, both economically and culturally.
Specifically, the nuclear family – the core element of strong offspring necessary for a righteous society – has been largely destroyed. The result has been a country where grievance trumps serious debate. The result has been a perverted system of government. One our Framers worked hard to avoid.
The polite society that I grew up in is gone. Likely to never be regained. At least, not as long as the government has hustlers of divisive politics in our governments.
Most people who post here do not consider the positions taken by Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens either “normal” or “conservative. Typical of leftists, that opinion is asserted as a fact.