DEI hire and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson just had a really bad time in Oral Arguments.

Because this can get a little complicated, here’s a quick summary to bring you up to speed:

  • The Supreme Court heard a major case this week about the Voting Rights Act of 1965, focusing on whether states can legally draw election maps based on race.
  • The case, Louisiana v. Callais, challenges the creation of a second majority-Black district in Louisiana under Section 2 of the VRA, which bars voting practices that weaken minority voting power.
  • A three-judge federal panel had earlier ordered Louisiana to add the second majority-Black district, prompting a lawsuit by white voters in 2024.
  • During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged in several heated exchanges with Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, repeatedly interrupting and raising her voice.
  • Jackson argued that states have a compelling interest in remedying racial discrimination in voting, while Aguiñaga contended that plaintiffs in prior cases were simply requesting an extra majority-Black district.
  • The justice insisted that identifying voting discrimination and crafting a remedy are separate legal steps, pushing back forcefully against Aguiñaga’s framing.
  • The conservative majority, including Justice Clarence Thomas, has expressed skepticism toward race-based redistricting, questioning whether Section 2 remains constitutional in that context.
  • A ruling limiting race-based district creation could substantially narrow the reach of the Voting Rights Act, reshaping redistricting laws nationwide.
  • Such a decision might empower Republican-led states to redraw maps with fewer race-based considerations — potentially making some Democratic districts more competitive.
  • The outcome could have major implications for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond, affecting both federal and state-level representation.

Now listen to how badly DEI Jackson handles this with her “trust me bro” argument:

Justice Jackson:
Wait, so can I just ask you—why is that not a compelling state interest, to identify areas in which that problem is occurring?

Attorney:
Your Honor, of course, as this Court recognized in SFFA, states can remedy intentional discrimination—

ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Jackson:
No, I’m not talking about the remedy.

Attorney:
That they—

Justice Jackson:
I’m talking about the—

Attorney:
They can identify.

Justice Jackson:
Identify.

Attorney:
Of course.

All right. So if I’m right that Section 2 is about identifying the problem and then requiring some remedy, I don’t understand why your answer to Justice Kagan’s question about, “Is this a compelling state interest?” is no. The answer is obviously yes—that you have an interest in remedying the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool.

Whether you go too far in your remedy is another issue, right?

Attorney:
Your Honor, I think step one in all of these cases—it was certainly step one in the Robinson litigation—is the plaintiffs came in and said, “We want another majority-Black district.”

Justice Jackson:
I thought they came in and said, “We are not receiving equal electoral opportunity because our votes are being diluted.”

Attorney:
Which is the same way of saying, “We deserve a second majority district.”

Justice Jackson:
No, it’s not, because that—uh, again, just trust me on this—the second district is a remedy that one could offer for a problem that we’ve identified.

And the whole Robinson litigation was about identifying the problem. “Is this really happening?”

ADVERTISEMENT

In many, many Section 2 cases, the court says, “You’re wrong. You’re fine. There is not an electoral opportunity being denied to you. Go away.”

In this case, the court said, “I see. I’m looking at the factors. I appreciate what you’re saying. You’ve proven that we have this problem, and so the next question is: how do we go about remedying it?”

Attorney:
Right. And the problem, Justice Jackson, that the Middle District identified was not intentional discrimination. And, in fact, I think when I hear my—

Justice Jackson:
Why do you need intentional discrimination to remedy a problem like the one that I’ve identified?

Attorney:
Because if you’re going to use race the way that the Robinson appellants want the court to use race in drawing a second majority-minority district, you’ve got to have a compelling interest.

Justice Jackson:
Thank you.

Chief Justice:
Time out. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Clerk:
Thank you, Counsel.

Chief Justice:
Mr. Grime?

Backup here if needed:

More here:

It is absolutely embarrassing that she is actually a Supreme Court Justice.

What a joke!

This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.
 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.