www.dailywire.com
Could This Supreme Court Case Permanently Destroy The Democrats?
When POLITICO ran that hit piece about the supposedly racist and horrifying messages in that Young Republicans’ group chat, which we discussed yesterday, I have to admit that I didn’t imagine, in my wildest dreams, where the story would go next. I had no idea that, of all people, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would do something to help the Republicans who were being “cancelled” in this smear campaign.
After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson, like every other Supreme Court justice appointed by a Democrat, is a rabid Left-wing partisan. She also has an IQ of approximately room temperature (in Celsius). And yet, despite all of that, in her own special way, Ketanji Brown Jackson has stepped in. She’s done the Young Republicans a solid.
Of course, Jackson didn’t defend the Young Republicans on purpose. This is a woman who probably can’t spell her own name, if we’re being honest. Like a caterpillar or an amoeba, she’s barely capable of making any conscious decisions at all. Instead, Jackson bailed out the Republicans inadvertently, without even realizing it. And she did it by drawing fire away from them. She ran interference, if you will, by dropping the Supreme Court equivalent of an n-bomb. It’s as if she read those private messages from the POLITICO article and said, “These slurs are tame and unoriginal at best. We can do much, much better — or worse, depending on your perspective.”
And so Ketanji Brown Jackson decided, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court, to announce that in her view, from a highly educated legal perspective, black people are “disabled” — just like people who are disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is a line that no one in that highly offensive Young Republican chat was racist enough to utter. Ketanji dreamed big with this one. It’s a line of reasoning that, in any other context, you might expect to hear from a klansman or Joe Biden. But for Ketanji Brown Jackson, it came naturally, in open court. This is from oral arguments yesterday:
Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings
“They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled.” pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025
Credit: @BreitbartNews/X.com
“They don’t have equal access to the voting system,” Ketanji Brown Jackson says, referring to black people. “They’re disabled.”
Now, if I’m an editor at POLITICO — and I’m not, thank God — this would definitely be a cancel-worthy line. You will not find any imaginary white supremacist, even in the fevered imagination of Merrick Garland, who would come up with content like this. But here we are. We’re being told that black people are basically disabled.
Of course, in this case, because Ketanji Brown Jackson was allegedly making a “legal argument” in a case before the Supreme Court, we’re supposed to look the other way and pretend she was making an intelligent point here.
The problem for Democrats is that, no, Ketanji Brown Jackson was not making an intelligent point. And as a result, it looks like they’re going to lose this particular case. The majority of the justices on the Supreme Court made that clear during these oral arguments. And this isn’t just any random case. This is a big one. If Democrats lose this case, as it appears they will, then the results will be utterly catastrophic for the Democratic Party. We are talking about a disaster unlike anything else in political history.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that this is easily one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time. It’s a case that will finally destroy, once and for all, a fraudulent system that Democrats have relied on — for decades — to win dozens of seats in Congress. They have been rigging the game for generations. They have been stealing elections in plain sight. And now it’s coming to an end. As a party, Democrats could be absolutely decimated by what’s about to happen.
So let’s back up and talk, at some length, about the case that Ketanji Brown Jackson was dealing with when she made that comment. Here’s how they’re describing the case on MSNBC, to give you some background — and some sense of how they’re panicking on the Left. Watch:
NEW: The Supreme Court signaled they are on the verge of weakening or completely dismantling the Voting Rights Act, according to multiple reports.
MSNBC’s Mark Stern: “It sounded like a majority of the justices are leaning toward embracing some form of that argument, which… pic.twitter.com/JK3J6ll0Tq
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 15, 2025
Credit: @RedWave_Press/X.com
They’re upset because the Voting Rights Act was one of the most significant pieces of Civil Rights-era legislation. And when I say “significant,” I mean that it’s given the Democratic Party an extraordinary amount of unearned political power for many decades. And now, based on oral arguments yesterday at the Supreme Court, it’s likely to be struck down.
On the surface, the Voting Rights Act was a reasonable-sounding law. It made it illegal to deny any American their right to vote or to discriminate against voters on account of their skin color. Most people would agree with that basic idea. The point, at the time, was to ensure that there wouldn’t be a conspiracy to gerrymander congressional districts in such a way as to dilute the black vote. For example, it would be illegal under the Voting Rights Act for a state government to intentionally draw its congressional district maps so that, in every district, black people made up a very tiny percentage of the population.
This can be a little confusing, so let’s break this down.
Let’s say a town is holding an election for dog catcher. The winner of the election is the candidate who wins a majority of the town’s five districts. And let’s say the town has 150 white people and 75 black people. Under the Voting Rights Act, it would be illegal for the town’s leadership to go out of its way to draw the district map so that all of the 75 black people are located in one strangely-shaped district, while the 150 white people occupy the other four districts. That would be a clear effort to dilute the vote along racial lines and minimize the black vote so that they don’t have any impact on the outcome of the election. Seems reasonable enough.
The problem is that, like every other piece of civil rights legislation, the scope of the Voting Rights Act has expanded dramatically over the years, through amendments and court cases. Now, as a result of all these changes, any state that doesn’t have “enough” majority-black districts is deemed to be in violation of the law, under the theory of “disparate impact.” In other words, even if there was no intentional discrimination in drawing the congressional districts, then courts will still conclude that the law has been violated, if not enough districts are majority-black.
So, to go back to the dog catcher analogy, let’s say each of the five districts in the town has 15 black people and 30 white people. In other words, there are no majority-black districts. The black people and the white people are evenly distributed. And that happened by accident. The town split up the districts based on geography, and that’s how the demographics shook out. In this case, without a doubt, a court would rule that arrangement to be illegal — even if there’s a completely reasonable justification for the map. The mere fact that black people don’t have a majority district, by itself, is supposedly evidence of discrimination, given that the town has a lot of black people overall.
And then, once courts decide that a state doesn’t have enough majority-black districts, courts will order states to redraw their electoral maps, so that more majority-black districts would be created. A couple of years ago, that’s exactly what happened to the state of Louisiana. In 2022, the state drew a congressional map that had six districts, and only one of those districts was majority-black.
There was no evidence of intentional discrimination by the state of Louisiana or anything like that. In fact, Louisiana made a strong argument that they had drawn the maps to maximize the political advantages for the Republican Party — not to exclude any racial group. But under the Voting Rights Act, evidence of intentional discrimination wasn’t needed. The mere fact that there was only one majority-black district, according to the courts, was a problem.
You’re probably beginning to see the problem here. Black people, as a demographic group, overwhelmingly vote Democrat. And it’s rational, from a political perspective, for Republicans to draw districts to dilute the strength of Democrat-aligned voters. And it’s legal, too. The only thing that’s impermissible is to dilute black people’s votes, because they’re black. That’s it. So effectively, Louisiana is being called racist for doing something that they’re legally entitled to do, simply because it happens to have a disproportionate impact on black people.
Therefore, the state of Louisiana was ordered by a federal court to create a new majority-black district because not enough majority-black districts existed. They had to go back and carve up the electoral map and lose a member of Congress in the process to create a new district where black voters were in the majority.
Here’s what Louisiana came up with:
This is obviously an absurd district. If you’re listening to the audio podcast, the new district stretches across nearly the entire length of the state of Louisiana, from northwest to southeast. It cuts across urban areas, rural areas, swampland, and so on. It looks like a stretch mark across the entire state. Like the state of Louisiana just lost a bunch of weight on Ozempic or something. It’s extremely obvious that the people living in this district have nothing in common with each other, except their skin color.
In other words, to remedy non-existent racism, the state of Louisiana was ordered by a federal court to draw a map that excluded as many white people as possible. They had to be racist to fight racism. That’s what the “Voting Rights Act” is all about.
After Louisiana was forced by the courts to draw this district, to their great credit, several citizens in the state filed a lawsuit over it. And now, that lawsuit is before the Supreme Court. The question is: Can states be forced to draw districts like this, to exclude as many white people as possible, if states don’t have enough majority-black districts?
In other words, is it acceptable under our Constitution to openly and flagrantly discriminate against white voters, in order to remedy alleged “past discrimination”?
Right now, it seems like the Supreme Court is going to answer this question correctly — with a resounding “no.” And if that’s ultimately the court’s decision, Democrats will lose nearly two dozen seats in Congress, immediately. They’d have a very difficult time obtaining a majority in the House of Representatives ever again. That’s because, as you saw earlier, Louisiana isn’t the only state that has artificial, majority-black districts like this. Several other southern states do, as well. Here’s CNN, assessing the potential damage to the Democrats:
?Just in: CNN is now panicking that Democrats would lose up to 19 seats if the Supreme Court strikes down the Voting Rights Act pic.twitter.com/xmpXkaTpuX
— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) October 14, 2025
Credit: @TheCalvinCooli1/X.com
To put this number in context: Democrats currently have 213 members in the House. That’s six fewer members than Republicans.
If the Voting Rights Act is ruled unconstitutional, then Democrats will potentially lose 19 seats — more than three times the current differential in the House. That’s how important this civil rights-era law has been, for Democrats’ political prospects as a party. They have been completely dependent on this corrupt and obviously immoral law.
Here’s another way to visualize the potential change to the electoral map:
Democrats in South face wipeout if Supreme Court guts Voting Rights Act — NYT pic.twitter.com/goHof93AS3
— NewsWire (@NewsWire_US) October 15, 2025
Credit: @NewsWire_US/X.com
As you can see, an awful lot of blue districts will be wiped off the map, instantly. Most people don’t have any idea about this, but it’s true: the key to Democrats’ political power is that they have fundamentally rigged the system. Democrats have been rigging it for decades. When Trump says that 2020 was rigged, he’s right. And every election before that was also rigged, stretching back decades. That’s why they’ve been trying to intimidate and assassinate Supreme Court justices. They know that a conservative court could dismantle their entire party. And it looks like that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
And this is obviously the right outcome. First of all, as the lawyers pointed out yesterday at the Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act — as it’s currently being implemented — completely ignores situations where white people are in the minority. There are no congressional maps that are being redrawn, anywhere in the country, because a state doesn’t have enough majority-white districts.
And that’s not because we don’t have white people in the minority in many places in this country. There are plenty of districts in California where white people are in the minority. That wasn’t the case when the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, but it’s true now. And yet, the state of California is not being forced to redraw districts so that whites have a majority anywhere. Instead, white people are told to enjoy their minority status, as the street signs all transition to Spanish.
Here’s another moment from yesterday’s oral arguments, where the deputy solicitor general makes this point to Sonia Sotomayor:
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “Even white Republicans or white Democrats won’t vote for black candidates.”
Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan: “Right, but if these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None!”
“So… pic.twitter.com/NOdMM6vexU
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 15, 2025
Credit: @RedWave_Press/X.com
“If these were white Democrats, there’s no reason to think they would have a second district. None. … So their argument is, because these Democrats happen to be black, they get a second district. If they were all white, we all agree they wouldn’t get a second district. That is literally the definition of race subordinating traditional principles.”
No matter how much Democrats scream about “equity” and “past discrimination,” there’s no getting around it: Our Constitution does not permit open racial discrimination, period — even if you’re supposedly doing it for “the right reasons” or whatever. The Supreme Court was willing to entertain the idea of “affirmative action” for many years, which was a disaster. But we’re past that now. And the Supreme Court is past it, too.
We’ll play one more clip from these oral arguments, because it summarizes how weak the arguments from the Left were.
Here’s an attorney with the NAACP:
NAACP lawyer argues at SCOTUS that it’s necessary to create race-based congressional districts because “white Democrats were not voting for black candidates whether they were Democrats or not.” pic.twitter.com/PlTPSYNqye
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 15, 2025
Credit: @greg_price11/X.com
Her argument is that “white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democrats or not.” And therefore, we need to have more majority-black districts.
Think about what they’re saying here. In effect, the NAACP is making the argument that, unless black people get elected, then our democracy isn’t working and the Constitution is being violated. Black people now have a constitutional right to get a lot of votes, apparently.
Never mind the fact that white people vote for black candidates all the time. Barack Obama was the president for eight years. And there are plenty of black politicians who hold elected office in the GOP. And never mind the fact that, with this argument, the NAACP is basically admitting that they see black people as a monolithic voting bloc that always supports Democrats. None of their arguments make any sense under their own framework. It’s a complete debacle. And the Supreme Court recognizes that.
What we’re seeing here, pretty clearly, is that Democrats are flailing around, desperately trying to preserve those 19 stolen seats in the House. They’re throwing every imaginable argument at the wall. And they’re being as dishonest as they possibly can be.
But it wasn’t that long ago — during the Obama years — when Democrats were more transparent about their goals, as they related to the Voting Rights Act. Under the Obama administration, the Obama DOJ rejected a North Carolina town’s effort to switch to non-partisan voting, saying that the change was “likely to reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.”
In other words, according to the Obama DOJ, black people just vote for Democrats automatically, out of habit. So if the candidate was “non-partisan,” then Democrats wouldn’t be able to figure out who to vote for. Therefore, in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act, states have to elect more Democrats. That was the official position of the Obama DOJ. They put it in writing. They just admitted that the whole point of civil rights law is to benefit one political party.
Nearly two decades later, Democrats’ arguments have become more convoluted. But they haven’t become more persuasive. Everyone — including the conservatives on the Supreme Court — sees exactly what’s going on here. The Voting Rights Act, like so many other relics of the civil rights era, is anti-white. It’s morally wrong. And it’s an impediment to America’s progress. The only beneficiary has been the Democratic Party, which has used the Voting Rights Act to rig thousands of elections. And when they lose that power — which, it seems, is about to happen — then we’ll see exactly what voters think of them. We’ll see if they really deserve to have those 19 extra seats in the House. And nothing is more terrifying to the self-described “defenders of democracy” than that — nor should it be.
* * *
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to DailyWire.com/Subscribe to join now.
New Posts (Home)
ChatBox
Popular Posts 
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
