Below is my column in The Hill on the calls for a boycott of SEC schools by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries over the Supreme Court banning racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act. The use of such sports legends as Jackie Robinson to fight for a form of racial discrimination shows how politics can outstrip our principles.
Here is the column:
“It’s a Jackie Robinson moment.” That declaration by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries struck a curious chord because Jeffries was calling for Black athletes to boycott SEC conference teams to protest not the existence but the elimination of racial discrimination.
Jeffries was upset that the court had ended racial gerrymandering designed to guarantee the election of non-white (and largely Democratic) House members. It was as if Jackie Robinson were to join a protest calling for the return of race-based discrimination in baseball.
Robinson played his first year in the Negro League with the Kansas City Monarchs before becoming the first African-American player in the Major Leagues when he took the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947.
He ushered in a new era in baseball, in which race had no role in competitive sports. There would be no racial division of leagues, no race quotas and no segregation — just an equal playing field.
Almost 50 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court found that racial quotas in university admissions violated the 14th Amendment. The court later declared all racial preferences to be unconstitutional. Yet, for decades, a form of political affirmative action has persisted under the Voting Rights Act, where federal courts required racial gerrymandering to guarantee the election of minority members to Congress.
That ended with the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which found that was also unlawful racial discrimination.
The Callais decision brought something long missing from our constitutional jurisprudence: consistency. In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Yet for decades, certain forms of racial discrimination were tolerated in the name of diversity or equity. The Callais decision put an end to this pretense and declared all such racial gerrymandering is illegal and discriminatory.
In response, the NAACP called for both players and fans to boycott SEC teams. MS NOW host Chris Hayes asked whether Jeffries would support the effort. Jeffries declared that black athletes should turn down potential career-making offers from SEC powerhouse teams to preserve political affirmative action. He said that existing students should “abandon SEC schools,” even though such moves might effectively end their careers. “There should be no athletic or sports participation. … You know, this is a Muhammad Ali moment. This is a Bill Russell moment. It’s a Jackie Robinson moment.”
Jeffries acknowledged that such moves will “require a level of courage and character and conviction,” but he added that it would be worth it. Politicians often ask others to make sacrifices that would benefit them, but this was truly the Super Bowl of self-serving political pitches. Some of these young athletes would give up their hopes for an NFL career, just to fight for racial gerrymandering so that Black voters can be either cracked or packed into districts.
It is a system that has yielded Democratic districts for decades. But are these athletes’ careers really worth sacrificing to Jeffries’s all-consuming desire to be the next Speaker of the House?
Self-serving demands are nothing new for politicians. They often ask for sacrifices from others to further their own ambitions. This week, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) called on Californians to boycott Chevron after the company launched a campaign reminding them that they are paying the highest gas prices in the nation. For years, Democrats have added gas taxes to both pay for bloated budgets and to encourage the expansion of public transportation. Environmental policies have devastated the state’s oil and gas industry and increased its reliance on foreign oil.
Newsom’s response was to call for Californians to potentially pay more at other stations, in order to punish Chevron for telling the truth about his policies. “Californians,” he tweeted, “if you’re hitting the road this holiday weekend, be sure to AVOID Chevron.”
In fairness to Newsom, though, asking residents to potentially pay a little more at the pump to punish Chevron for embarrassing him is trivial in comparison to the ask of athletes to derail or discontinue their football careers.
What is particularly dishonest is how the Callais decision has been portrayed by many pundits, professors, and politicians. What neither the NAACP nor Jeffries will mention is that the Supreme Court preserved the original intent of the VRA to ban intentional racial discrimination in the design of electoral districts. Far from being “gutted,” the law will still be used to bar efforts to deny minority voters their equal voting rights. It will also now bar racial discrimination in any form in the design of these districts.
To invoke Jackie Robinson to support racial discrimination in politics is to denigrate his legacy. Ironically, Robinson was a Republican who spoke out against what he saw as the rise in racial politics in the 1960s in the Republican Party. He warned that there is “a new breed which is seeking to sell to Americans a doctrine which is as old as mankind — the doctrine of racial division.”
He added what could be the perfect retort to Jeffries today in the use of his name to support racial gerrymandering: “It would make everything I worked for meaningless if baseball is integrated but political parties were segregated.”
So, maybe Jeffries is right. This is “a Jackie Robinson moment” after all.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
AI Overview
The total inflation-adjusted cost of the Great Society and subsequent U.S. anti-poverty programs since 1965 is estimated to be over $27 trillion.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Next up for the NAACP et al., reparations to actual American taxpayers for the so-called “War on Poverty”; the “Great Society”; affirmative action; quotas; forced integration; forced busing; property devaluation from unfair “fair housing laws” and discriminatory “non-discrimination laws”; and the rest of the monumental cost of the communist American welfare state since 1964.
OT
The Pope doesn’t like progress, AI, or rich people. The Pope Covets. The Pope Bears False Witness. The Pope Steals. The Pope is compelled to accomplish the unification of church and state with himself as the king. He can’t see beyond his fear of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and he wants to steal other people’s money in the form of increased taxes, namely that of the billionaires and trillionaires. Clearly he does not believe in the 23rd Psalm, “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.” The Lord has promised to be with him through the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Adding this to his aversion to war against Iran and its proxies who are nothing but pure evil and heinous butchers of innocent human beings, namely Israelis, this guy must be impeached and convicted for his egregious sins, and sent to logic and intellectual rehab.
Jeffries’ attempt to intimidate non-white athletes is despicable.
It is a mystery how America should accomplish “districting” and “redistricting.
And the answer is:
Shortest Splitline Algorithm!
https://www.caliper.com/glossary/what-is-a-splitline-algorithm.htm
Yep, that simple.
To all the subjects of Spamberger: You have a duty to not follow her unconstitutional orders.
Congress should enact a law requiring maps to be drawn according to politically neutral benchmarks, so that neither party can gerrymander.* I realize I’ve said this before, but I don’t mind repeating it since it’s needed. Partisan gerrymandering is a battle that the two major parties generally fight to a draw, andit wastes resources including time and money, stirs up dissention, and serves no socially useful goals.
*The widely-accepted benchmarks are: compact, contiguous, equally populous, and minimizing of polticial subdivision splits.
The recent SCOTUS opinions re gerrymandering didn’t help. .. they’re busy gerrymandering more than ever.
*As far as I can tell, the ‘two major political parties’ control every aspect of American government .. . from voting to foreign policy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-sick-of-gerrymandering-it-s-not-too-late-to-change-how-america-votes/ar-AA23OzKj?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6a105ffe413d4a3584ac618f85a7f2bc&ei=35
Seven years ago, Scotus ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions. See Rucho v. Common Cause (2019). The legislation I am proposing would clarify that claims under the act shall not be considered nonjusticiable.
I wish it happens, Kansas. Maybe now that red states are no longer gerrymandered by Democrats, Democrats might have an incentive to listen. All this gerrymandering, racial and otherwise, is ugly business.
Shortest Splitline Algorithm
https://www.caliper.com/glossary/what-is-a-splitline-algorithm.htm
Agree, anon. Post your name. I don’t post mine either.
Signed,
Carpe Diem
Yes, omfk, correct. Compact and contiguous is math. It’s from a court decision back in 1911 or such. When it was renewed compact and contiguous were removed. I think Justice Harlan and others heard these cases.
The original compact and contiguous was meant to fight gerrymandering of any kind. People were smarter back then.
Democrats, Socialists and anti-Americans will forever stoke the fires in hell which will make American patriots stronger with the blessings of God . . . or, America will fall.
In what has become a Memorial Day tradition for him, on Monday Donald J. Trump laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Podiatrist.
Trump made his annual pilgrimage to pay homage to the heroic doctors who issued bogus diagnoses to ensure that their privileged patients never answered the call of duty.
In an emotional tribute, Trump thanked the fallen foot specialists who bravely risked their medical licenses so that others facing military service could be free.
Choking back tears, he said, “They gave everything so people like me could give nothing.”
All gave some
Some gave all
Trump didn’t give a sh!t
And still doesn’t
Only someone who posts under anonymous would make such an idiotic statement. What’s the matter, afraid to own your hatred and ignorance? Brave!
He actually thinks he’s being clever.
I feel sorry for you! You are so filled with hate and mindless rage that you can’t even hold sacred this moment this day for these soldiers!!!!
Tell us the (military) doctor let him walk?
Bet you can’t have have zero idea how it works.
Tedious.
Says the hypocrite who voted for Bill “I’ll be in Moscow if you need me” Clinton and Joe “Call me some other time” Biden. Who also voted for Obama over McCain and Clinton over Robert Dole.
I hate phonies but I hate hypocrites even more.
hullbobby
We all know that hate is all the MAGA mob has to offer.
At least you admit it.
I hate everything.
Go smoke some dope and watch some kiddy porn, anon.
Jeffries has learned his lesson well. He learned it from a guy named Biden who said they’re gonna put ya’ll back in chains.
When it’s tried and true why change? Race baiting is an art form in Democratic circles. On occasion they meet to share notes and repeat the mantra over and over again. obabama racists obabama racists obabama racists racists racists georgafloyda georgeafloyda georgeafloyda racists racists racists.
The incantation can last for never ending days on end.
Great!
The original intent of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 directly contradicts the Callais ruling and Jonathan Turley’s defense of it by transforming the definition of “equality” into a hollow, procedural checklist. Turley argues that the Callais decision restores the VRA’s original focus by banning all racial considerations in redistricting. However, this colorblind interpretation completely ignores the explicit legislative history and purpose of the law.
The VRA was never intended to be a passive, colorblind shield. Congress explicitly amended Section 2 of the VRA in 1982 to establish the “results test.”
Congress explicitly moved the law away from requiring proof of “intentional” discrimination, recognizing that sophisticated mapmakers could easily dilute minority voting power under the guise of race-neutral criteria.
The original and amended intent of the VRA mandates that courts look at the effect of a redistricting map. If a map results in a minority population being mathematically blocked from electing a candidate of their choice, the map is illegal. By ruling that drawing a district to ensure minority representation is itself “unlawful racial discrimination,” the Callais decision completely flips the VRA on its head. It uses the law to protect white majorities from the remedies designed to curb their own historical monopoly on power.
When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the VRA, he famously noted that voting is not just a right on paper, but the “effective exercise” of that right. The original intent was to guarantee an equal opportunity to elect representatives, not just an equal right to stand in a line and cast a mathematically irrelevant ballot.By treating the intentional protection of minority voting strength as an unconstitutional racial preference, the Callais decision restores the exact conditions the VRA was written to destroy. It allows structural, geographic discrimination to hide behind a veil of “colorblindness,” completely subverting the core purpose of America’s most successful civil rights legislation.
Welcome to Bosnia!
The Court concluded in Callais, as it has many times, that the 15th amendment, pursuant to which the VRA was enacted, creates a right only to be free of intentional racial discrimination. Because of this, the Court held that the 15th Amendment limits the extent to which the VRA may constitutionally apply an effects test.
Accordingly, it interpreted Section 2 to avoid a constitutional infirmity, a standard way to proceed. It held that a Section 2 violation could occur only when the circumstances gave rise to a strong inference of intentional discrimination. It held that this could be proved in the absence of direct evidence of intentional discrimination only by demonstrating that an alternative map drawn without regard to race could meet all of the state’s lawful objectives, including incumbent protection and party advantage, at least as well as the map being challenged. Even if that could be proved, further steps were required to make out a successful claim, including that voting was polarised on the basis of race AFTER controlling for party affiliation.
Having narrowed the scope of Section 2 in this way to bring it in line with the Court’s interpretation of the 15th Amendment’s limitations, the Court then found that there was no violation of Section 2 proved in this case. Only proof of such a violation could provide the requisite compelling state interest necessary to justify the use of race to draw district lines under the 14th Amendment.
Kagan’s dissent argued that the 15th Amendment gave more leeway for effects tests. Among other things, she cited Chief Justice Roberts’ 2023 majority opinion in Allen v Milligan, the Alabama case. Kavanaugh also joined Roberts’ opinion in that case. Both switched, without explanation, to join Alito’s majority opinion in Callais. Alito had dissented in Allen.
So, in Callais, the Court ruled in essence that an effects test under Section 2 is unconstitutional. It didn’t quite say that, but it came very close to doing so, and that is the end result.
Accordingly, relying on the idea that Congress intended to create an effects test through the 1982 amendments to Section 2 is of no avail. To the extent that is what Congress did, it acted unconstitutionally, according to the Court.
Thanks Daniel for the analysis here and earlier! Was there any hint at oral argument from Roberts and Kavanaugh that they were going to switch sides?
I don’t remember well, but I think so. The outcome was not a surprise.
Kagan’s dissent really skewers them, pointing out every statement in Allen that is contradicted in Callais.
George Svelaz X is using AI again and doesn’t know what he is saying.
One of his problems is that AI doesn’t recognize cognitive dissonance, so where the prose might sound pretty, they actually provide nonsense. In this case, the most glaring evidence of dissonance is that the 1982 amendment contradicts the original argument of 1965
Yeah, he’s been Esquire here and there lately.
In algebra X = AI.
X = AI can also be written,
Garbage X in = Garbage X AI out.
one day we should make a list of the scores of sock puppet names Peter Hill has adopted versus those that were assigned to him, e.g. Paint Chips, Peter Shill, Nail Salon Owner, ATS, etc. Paint Chips was the best one because it explained his mental illness succinctly and humorously
You gotta feel sorry for the incel though. All that effort to get noticed yet never gets laid kinda like George Michael cruising for sex in Los Angeles public restrooms but earning ridicule. Clearly Paint Chips has a lot of faith.
Such a good looking young man wrecked his carear.
S. Meyer, but you haven’t shown that it’s factually wrong. You have not produced anything close to a rebuttal or refutation.
You fail to understand the mechanics at play. AI takes completely dissonant facts and connects them seamlessly, creating a specious argument. Those who actually understand the underlying infrastructure recognize the structural errors immediately. Because you don’t know the facts, you mistake smooth phrasing for accuracy.
S. Meyer,
That is why there is no point in reading George.
We should be able to label postings; George would be WORTHLESS.
S. Meyer– I used a simple test for AI when my grandsons were waxing eloquent about its wonders. I said, “ask it about Clarence Darrow’s cigar.” They did and AI came back with lots of information about how cigars are made and how one tells the quality, but nothing about Darrow’s cigar. He was a trial lawyer hero of mine. And as those who know of him know, in jury trials (back when you could smoke in a courtroom) until the judges told him to stop, he would wear a white, silk suit. While the other side’s key witnesses were on the stand, he would smoke a cigar (into which he had inserted a wire before trial) and as the ash grew longer and longer, the jury would pay no attention to the witnesses but would focus entirely on the ash and white suit. When AI can tell me about Clarence Darrow’s cigar, I’ll be impressed.
You do understand AI is constantly evolving, right? Google just recently switched to using AI more with its queries. It’s now the default standard.
If you do your ‘test’ again it will show a better answer more likely the one you had in mind.
🙂
It’s a guessing machine lacking human understanding, so it can easily stray into pleasant answers totally out of context and be totally wrong. A human understanding the ideas in the text can see the lack of human understanding and know immediately they are likely reading AI.
Good story…
S. Meyer, you’re hilarious, as usual. You have absolutely no idea what cognitive dissonance is.
The 1982 amendment did not contradict the original 1965 Voting Rights Act; it closed a legal loophole to fulfill the law’s original promise.Here is the exact legislative and legal history that disproves the “contradiction” argument:
The original 1965 Act was passed to eliminate overt barriers like literacy tests. As southern states pivoted to subtler tactics like gerrymandering to dilute minority votes, the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 (City of Mobile v. Bolden) that plaintiffs had to prove lawmakers possessed explicit racist intent when drawing maps, which is nearly impossible to prove.
In response to the Bolden ruling, an overwhelming bipartisan coalition in Congress stepped in to clarify the VRA’s true purpose. Congress amended Section 2 to explicitly establish the “results test.”
The New Standard: It codified that a voting map is illegal if its result is the mathematical dilution of a minority group’s voting power, regardless of what lawmakers claimed their intent was.
Bipartisan Affirmation: This was not a radical partisan rewrite. The 1982 amendment passed the House 389–24, passed the Senate 85–8, and was proudly signed into law by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
Perhaps next time you should back up your claims.
X-ie, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The only thing you know how to do is rewrite (sometimes merely copy, without sourcing, as you did here) what you can lift from AI and its source results that cater to your confirmation-biased search request. It is YOU who are HILARIOUS!
First, you did not even know what “cognitive dissonance” WAS until you picked it up from us about a year and a half ago
(like other things you learned here).
Second, it’s easy to see that you do not understand what you try to copy a/o reword, because SCOTUS is basing its decision primarily on the Fifteenth Amendment, as it applies to the VRA. That must have gone over your head. TO simply argue the 1982 VRA Amendment is so.stupid.and.inapplicable.
Try again, clown, and try to stay in your own lane of narrow phoniness.
Anonymous, you’re not saying what I post is factually wrong. You’re not even producing an argument.
I am glad you think I am hilarious. It proves you are a dope. Your rhetoric afterwards proves it further.
S. Meyer, as always, you have no idea what you’re trying to argue. You make zero sense. Throwing around insults just shows you don’t have an argument or a point. That’s why it’s hilarious.
We all know who you are and how you think. The only error I might have made is in the next reply by anonymous, that instead of him having no track record, he likely has one, yours. You like to boost yourself up by adding anonymous comments in agreement with you.
You are such a fool.
S. Meyer,
He does not think. He lets AI do the thinking for him.
Not only does Meyer not understand the term “cognitive dissonance”, he apparently does not understand the term “rhetoric”.
The comment by X is a quite straight forward factual summary of the history of the VRA, not a rhetorical argument.
I believe the term”dope” is better applied to Meyer with his ridiculous opinionated, entirely fact free and unresponsive comment, made for the sole purpose of insulting someone who he realizes has exposed him as the fool that we all know him to be.
What you believe doesn’t count. You are anonymous and prove yourself not trustworthy. It is obvious over the years that I have been correct on most of what I say. You have no track record.
Once again, when Meyer realizes he has been proven wrong, and proven to be a fool, his fall back position is always to ignore the facts and insult the commenter with his old, tired complaint that he is anonymous and therefore not to be believed or trusted.
This pathetic deflection that Meyer employs time and time and time again simply confirms that he is incapable of engaging in anything even remotely resembling an intelligent discussion.
This insult he uses simply confirms he knows that he has been defeated and that he has no rational response.
The commenter insults himself with his response. The only question remaining is which moron this anonymous is.
Actually, the only question remaining is how long Meyer can keep making stupid, irrelevant insults because he know he is wrong.
The more he persists with insults, the more he confirms that he has admitted defeat.
The original intent of the American Founders and Framers was the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The only American entity that can’t grasp that is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Never was Lincoln’s war and dictatorship constitutional; secession was deliberately not prohibited by the Founders and Framers, was fully constitutional, and Lincoln was treasonously wrong—the consequences of Lincoln must be abrogated and remedied comprehensively.
The Founders passed a bill establishing the population.
The Founders and Framers established severe restrictions on the vote by state legislatures, which were nullified and voided.
The population is bewildered, “dazed and confused,” bizarre, and self-hating, and the vote is a frivolous joke.
The United States of America cannot be “fundamentally transformed” and survive as it was shaped, configured, formed, defined, established, framed, crafted, designed, instituted, originated, authored, founded, organized, constructed, devised, inaugurated, codified, and chartered by its Founders.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Hey, stupid X, just read Justice Thomas’s 2 paragraph opinion and that brain fungus you have will clear up.
The trend by some American politicians of happily sacrificing the welfare of the young to allay the fears of their elders is, frankly, outrageous. The Phoenicians and Carthaginians engaged in this practice but it did not help them. During the COVID-19 pandemic, well after it became clear that those individuals aged 2-25 had extremely low vulnerability, many school districts and univerisities kept schooling virtual to allay the fears of the teachers and administrators. Here again, Jeffries, rather self satisfied to have risen to be minority leader and to further achieve greater glorious political goals, is willing to put a guilt trip on young people who are just entering the later stages of their education prior to embarking on a career. This would be a missed opportunity. The state SEC institutions provide, frankly, an excellent (perhaps the best in the nation) educational value. This is an opportunity that should not be thrown away lightly as Jeffries seems to do.
On a lighter note, Prof Turley writes, “…this was truly the Super Bowl of self-serving political pitches.” That is a bit of a mixed metaphor that makes me dizzy thinking about it. Perhaps World Series or All Star Game would be better?
Pay a little more at the pump to punish Chevron but don’t pay a little more at the pump to punish Iran and keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. One sacrifice is not the same as another. It’s not just white students that have been skipped over but also some of the most brilliant American Chinese students. The hidden result is the loss of an education of students that could one day cure Alzheimers and Cancer.
Jews got left behind too.
Jeffries should be an embarrassment to every ethical Democrat out there, if there indeed are any left.
All he cares about is political gain and the money/power that comes with it.
Actually helping people of color doesn’t interest him in the least.
Appearing to help people of color is the intent of all his ridiculous rhetoric, and is his only goal.
All of New England has literally zero GOP representatives in the House, even though GOP voters account for up to 46% of voters in some of those states.
Put simply, the Democrats want to force racial gerrymanders on red states while blue states force political gerrymanders on their own. That’s why the Democrats are ALWAYS screaming racism. They need a pretext to justify their blatant hypocrisy.
This is tyranny. This is Rwanda with a baseball bat for machetes.
Astoundingly stupid comment on several levels.
Firstly, the proportion of registered Republicans in New England is closer to 40%. Since MAGA morons are typically mathematically challenged, it will no doubt come as a surprise to you that 40% represents a MINORITY. It is hardly surprising that Republicans are not well represented. You seem to be implying that the MINORITY of Republicans are somehow entitled to greater representation than their minority status suggests. In other words, you believe the system should allow elections to be won by a minority party. This would require gerrymandering, which you seem to oppose. Unfortunately, as a dimwitted MAGA moron, you fail to recognize the inherent contradiction of your argument.
Secondly, you fail to understand that registered Independent voters outnumber both Republican AND Democrat voters in New England.
In fact, Independents are actually the majority in all of New England states.
In Massachusetts, 65% of voters are registered Independents.
In Rhode Island, Independents are more than 50%.
Connecticut is 40% Independent, with 36% Democrat and 20% Republican.
New Hampshire and Maine are similar to Connecticut where Independents are the largest voting bloc, outnumbering both Democrats and Republicans.
So you see, your ridiculous argument fails on several levels, and in reality is nothing more than than the magical thinking of MAGA morons.
Hey Genius, 40% is higher than 0%, the number of Republicans in all 6 NE states.
Now do Illinois. Now do CA. Now do DE. Now do NJ. Now do NY.
It is extremely odd that you seem to think elections can be won by a party that has less than 50% of registered voters. You seem to be suggesting that our election system should be abandoned in favor of some sort of proportional representation system used in such places as Indonesia, Guatemala and Kazakhstan.
You asked about other states:
California: 45% Democrat, 30% no party preference, 25% Republican.
Delaware: 42% Democrat, 33% no party preference, 25% Republican.
New Jersey: 38% Democrat, 37% no party preference, 25% Republican
Illinois: 39% Democrat, 41% no party preference, 20% Republican
So what exactly is your point??
In all the states you mention, Republicans represent no more than 25% of registered voters. It is not surprising that Republicans do not win elections if they represent only 1 in 4 voters. And yet you think that Republicans somehow deserve greater representation, even when they are greatly outnumbered by both Democrats and Independents
Typical demented MAGA moron thinking.
Look at who voted for Trump:
New Hampshire: 46%
Maine: 45%
Rhode Island 42%
Connecticut: 42%.
And not one GOP House representative among them. Not one. That’s gerrymandering locking out independent voters, too.
Now let’s take your argument to its logical conclusion. Black Democrats represent only about 30% of voters in the South. By your own logic, it’s ok not having a single black Democrat representative in those states.
You can’t have it both ways. So much for your Democrat sophistry.
Math is obviously not your strong point.
Yes, Trump got around 42 to 46% in New England states.
That is almost EXACTLY the proportion of registered Republicans.
So what is your point ???
Those numbers are still less than 50%. Even if everyone who voted for Trump also voted for a Republican representative, then the Republican still loses.
Why can’t you understand that??
It is very simple. If the other party has proportionally more voters, then Republicans can’t win.
You seem to suffering from typical MAGA delusion thinking.
The issue here is statistics. A complete lockout of the House GOP in the northeast is unlikely without gerrymandering. With gerrymandering, it’s inevitable. You keep citing averages to oversimplify the problem and confuse people, maybe yourself.
Let’s face it, they’re intentionally gerrymandering. All your sophistry with numbers doesn’t excuse it.
Again, your argument suggests you’re ok with zero black House Democrats from the south. That’s your logic. Forget the math.
You know what I want? I wish the states could get together and hammer out the maps state-by-state so that all congressional districts are compact and contiguous, but that’s not going to happen because people like you won’t even admit Democrats gerrymander.
Democrats started it. You can end it.
Once again you display your extremely poor grasp of math. Indeed, you state “forget the math”.
Really ????
You are perhaps partially correct when you state that the issue is statistics.
The reason there are no Republican representatives in New England is because there are so few registered Republicans. The majority of registered voters are Independents. Republicans account for only around 40% of registered voters. This makes it statistically impossible to win elections. The only way that Republicans could win an election is by extreme gerrymandering, which you oppose.
Independents are by far the greatest voting bloc in New England. This is why Independents like Bernie Sanders and Angus King are so easily elected time after time.
Republicans are not represented simply because there are so few of them in New England.
You have succumbed to the nonsensical MAGA myth that just because 40% of voters are Republicans, they must therefore hold 40% of the seats, and that the failure to do so must be due to gerrymandering. The problem with your argument is that the fact that Republicans do not win elections is because there is NO gerrymandering. They are about 40% of voters but they are spread evenly without gerrymandering, therefore they cannot win an election. The only way that they could possibly win a seat is by gerrymandering, so the fact that they are not elected is proof that there is NO gerrymandering.
LBJ would blush at Hakeem’s race baiting.
“I’ll have those n**gers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”
~ Lyndon B. Johnson
“These Νεgrοεs, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.
Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957
Maybe they should gerrymander the SEC to include blue states.
Here are the opinions in Louisiana v. Callais: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf
Perhaps Jeffries was thinking of a different Jackie Robinson moment, when Jackie Robinson protested segregation in the military? On July 6, 1944, Robinson was a young lieutenant in the U.S. Army at Camp Hood, Texas. He boarded a military bus with a light‑skinned Black woman he was dating. The driver ordered him to move to the back — even though Army buses had been officially desegregated since 1940. Robinson refused. This was nine years before Rosa Parks, and he took the same stand.
The driver called the military police. Robinson was detained, interrogated, threatened, and ultimately charged with multiple offenses, including insubordination, disturbing the peace, refusing a lawful order and conduct unbecoming an officer. The charges were a transparent attempt to punish him for challenging Jim Crow.
Robinson was court‑martialed in August 1944. At trial, the prosecution’s case fell apart. Witnesses contradicted each other. The bus driver admitted Robinson had not been violent. The “lawful order” was unlawful because Army policy prohibited segregated seating. Robinson was acquitted on all charges.
But the Army still made sure he paid a price, even though he won the case. He was transferred out of his combat unit (the 761st Tank Battalion), barred from deployment, and effectively pushed out of the Army.
The 761st went on to become one of the most decorated Black units of WWII. Robinson never got to serve with them. His military career ended not because of misconduct — but because he refused to accept segregation.
Robinson’s stand in 1944 foreshadowed the courage he would need in 1947 when he integrated Major League Baseball. It also shows that the military claimed to be desegregated but still enforced Jim Crow in practice. Robinson was already a civil‑rights figure long before baseball.
Jonathan Turley argues that Hakeem Jeffries’ call for Black athletes to boycott 8 SEC schools—framed by Jeffries as a “Jackie Robinson moment”—misuses Robinson’s legacy by urging young athletes to sacrifice their careers in order to protest the Supreme Court’s recent decision ending racial gerrymandering. Turley contends that Robinson stood for eliminating race‑based barriers, not preserving them, and that invoking him to defend political racial sorting distorts both constitutional principles and Robinson’s own stated opposition to racial division in politics. He positions Jeffries’ appeal as a self‑serving political gesture that would harm the very athletes he claims to champion, while the Court’s ruling, in Turley’s view, simply restores consistency by prohibiting all forms of racial discrimination in district design.
There’s another Jackie Robinson moment Jeffries might have been referring to, the letter he wrote after attending the 1964 Republican Convention as an honorary delegate. That would be too much for many of you to handle.
Thanks for this history. Do you have a link to the letter from 1964?
This contains the entire letter.
https://williamspivey.substack.com/p/which-jackie-robinson-moment-was
Thanks
Doesn’t it come from his book? If an anonymous troll were commenting to you as he does to Turley, he would be calling you a liar. You aren’t in this case, for I think you made a reasonable error that requires no such comment.
“This was the scene when Jackie Robinson attended the 1964 Republican National Convention. He described his experiences in his autobiography, “I Never Had It Made.””
I said this came from his autobiography. He said the same thing in letters to syndicated newspaper columns and a CBS interview. Are you disputing this is factual or that it came in letter form?
I am saying you were inaccurate. That, which you called a letter, came from his book. If you wish to say others copied it and called it a letter, I won’t object, but it demonstrates a level of deceit that we frequently see in your writing.
I stated in my story it came from his autobiography. You’re looking for any excuse to discount the truth.
This was your reply:
enigmainblackcom says: May 25, 2026 at 11:40 AM
This contains the entire letter.
It is here in black and white. No more explanations. That is what I am talking about. It is not important, but you have too much vanity to simply say it came from his book.
I got a request for the letter, I knew what he meant and sent it. Everyone involved was satisfied except you. I don’t care about you.
I thought for others it might be useful to know it came from his book. I didn’t particularly care that you called it a letter instead of from his book. It’s not important, but I pointed out anonymous figures, noting the discrepancy would attack Turle mercilessly.
The article I wrote specifically said it came from his autobiography. Perhaps you didn’t read the piece?
The opposition to Callais is about one thing and one thing only. Prior to the decision, the VRA imposed a limit on how far Republicans could gerrymander red states to increase their representation. The VRA imposed no such limit on Democrats. After the decision, Republicans in red states will seek to eliminate every Democratic Party safe seat they can, mirroring what Democrats have done to Republicans in blue states. The resulting changes will make it harder for Democrats to win the House.
This will mean that black Democrats in the South will find themselves in Republican districts to a greater extent than before. Their increased political weight in those districts may have the effect of moderating the positions of candidates in both parties, as Republicans seek to win traditionally Democratic black votes and Democrats seek to win traditionally Republican white votes. There has long been a debate about whether it is better for a minority community to be concentrated in a limited number of districts or to be spread through many. This was discussed by various Justices in the earliest Supreme Court cases on redistricting under the VRA. We may now begin to see.
In any event, this has nothing to do with race as such. If blacks generally voted Republican, the Democrats would not be making a fuss.
If Black people generally voted Republican, the Republicans wouldn’t be initiating mid-cycle redistricting to try to take their seats. There was a time when Black people voted 97% Republican. It took a lot of time and effort by Republicans to reverse that trend.
True. This is political in nature. Lyndon Johnson shifted his party away from its white supremacist roots in the South, expanded welfare and cemented the black vote. Nixon then began to pursue the white vote in the South. Ultimately, the political bases of the parties in the South completely switched.
At this point, racial gerrymandering freezes the racial alignment of the parties. Now that Callais has outlawed it, there may be a change, or at least a moderation. It will take time.
Actually, it didn’t. I am reliably informed that blacks began to vote for Democrats because 1) they were angry with Goldwater for voting against the Civil Rights Act; 2) gave credit to Johnson for getting the Civil Rights Act passed when the credit belongs to Senator Everett Dirkson and congressional Republicans – as Johnson freely admitted (and is recorded for posterity on the Johnson White House tapes); and, 3) were seduced by the perceived benefits of the Great Society.
I’d love to know of this “reliable” informant. Black voters began moving to the Democratic Party (and white Republicans away) as early as 1948 when Truman desegregated the armed forces and federal government. Several other actions sped up the process. Republicans helped pass the Civil Rights Act but without Johnson they would never have gotten past the Democratic filibuster. It was the Voting Rights Act (which Johnson wanted to delay) that opened the floodgates to the conversion. Without Bloody Sunday which was shown on national television, the VRA migh never have passed. The Fair Housing Act was enacted days after the assassination of MLK. I give no great credit to Democratic leadership, but when the Dixiecrats left the party (starting in the 1940s) they were welcomed into the Republican Party.
Jeffries cites Jackie Robinson to defend racial gerrymandering, but Robinson literally warned that segregated politics would make his work meaningless. That’s a brutal historical misfire.
Jackie Robinson is an American Hero. His name should never be invoked to create racial divisiveness. Jackie Robinson earned the sobriquet “American Hero” because he epitomized the values that have joined us as a nation. Baseball team rosters do not have “carve out” positions reserved for certain races or ethnicities to the exclusion of others. Jackie Robinson–a person of great talent and character–made that happen.
Congressional seats were never carved out to the exclusion of others. There were established because others (white people) held all the seats. After Reconstruction, South Carolina, which had a majority Black population, went 95 years without a Black representative in Congress. It took the VRA, even then requiring federal intervention, to refigure the 6th District where Jim Clyburn was elected in 1992. They packed most of the Black population centers in one district. White legislators called it “the I‑95 ghetto district.” Black leaders called it “the first fair district in a century.” Now, South Carolina legislators are actively working to tear up that district.
As for Jackie Robinson, you really ought to know more of his story.
https://medium.com/the-polis/which-jackie-robinson-moment-was-hakeem-jeffries-talking-about-93aed8c6be19
I am constantly confused by the people that rant and rave about others discriminating against blacks, while they call for discrimination against any other nationality. They constantly yell and rave about equality but only for the ones they prefer. Equity is about the work you put out to obtain what you want not what someone else has to give up for you. Inclusion is everyone, again not just the ones you chose deserve to be included.
IMHO it is all pandering to obtain greater power, more money, greater visibility and ego. When people treat everyone as equal pandering won’t be effective.
Today I am remembering my uncle, a U.S. citizen by birth in the Philippines. He joined the army at 17, was booted out and then captured by the Japanese while working in the underground. After being emaciated he was released and joined the Army again. Captured once again he was one of the many in the Bataan Death March. He lost his life fighting for the freedom he believed in. Unfortunately he never set foot on U.S. soil until he was interred at Golden Gate National Cemetery.
For him and all the other’s that have paid the ultimate price, I thank you and your family and hope that the freedom and values that meant so much for them continue past the trials and tribulations of the current political environment.