Justice Jackson Compares Race Based Voting Districts to the ADA
This woman is going to be on the court for a looooong time.
The Supreme Court listened to oral arguments for the Louisiana v. Callais case.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made an absurd comment because, of course, she did.
Background
First, the background.
The ACLU, with 12 black plaintiffs, sued Louisiana after the state redrew its congressional map because only one district ended up with a majority minority:
This case started back in 2022, when the ACLU and our partners sued Louisiana for violating the Voting Rights Act by illegally packing Black Louisianans into one congressional district. After the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that said we were likely to succeed in proving our case, the Louisiana legislature enacted a new congressional map containing two majority Black districts.
In 2024, a group of white Louisianans challenged this new map as a racial gerrymander under the Fourteenth Amendment. A district court struck down the new map, but we successfully petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency stay on the district court’s order, ensuring that Louisiana voters had a map with two majority-Black congressional districts for the 2024 election.
The court will now rule on the constitutionality of drawing majority-Black districts to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Brown Jackson
First off, no, Jackson did not call black people disabled.
However, Jackson did say that not having race-based districts is like disabled people not being able to access anything before the ADA:
Kind of paradigmatic example of this is something like the ADA. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities, and so it was discriminatory, in effect, because these folks were not able to access these buildings, and it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary, that’s irrelevant. Congress said the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities, if readily possible.
I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. The idea in section two is that we are responding to current day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system, right? They’re disabled.
In other words, not having race-based districts disables them from voting.
Either way, what a stupid comparison.
Justice Jackson just compared black people not being able to create majority black congressional districts to disabled people not being able to enter a building before the ADA.
"They don't have equal access to the voting system. They're disabled." pic.twitter.com/zvN8bJf4Xc
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 15, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Being stupid is like being dead; you are not aware of it, and it’s only difficult for the others.”
Next week, Justice Jackson is going to explain to us that New Shimmer is both a dessert topping *and* a floor wax.
Jackson is the poster child for DEI. There are thousands of incredibly intelligent lawyers out there that would have made incredible justices if only the color of their skin and their gender did not align with Democrat policy initiatives.
She’s a dunce, period.
I’d really like to know what Justice Thomas thinks of her. I suspect even Kagan is not exactly excited about her.
Maybe she’ll get another verbal bitch slap from ACB when the opinion is written
I’d really like to know what Chief Justice John Roberts thinks about her. I suspect he, along with a majority of the Associate Justices, weren’t exactly thrilled when Pres. Autopen nominated her as a replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer and it became painfully apparent just how incompetent and unqualified she was at her confirmation hearing. They must cringe with embarrassment when she asks a question during oral arguments or when they read a dissenting opinion she’s written in advance of publication.
Biden Nominates Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court
Love the old school SNL reference !
She’s a moron. Period. Exclamation point.
Another gift from president Joe
She did meet all the requirements though. Both of them.
Another gift from the RINO’s Murkowski, Collins and Romney. If not for them she wouldn’t be on the court
All true
One thing though: The criteria the Biden administration had for this SCOTUS nominee were “black. female” and the absolute best they could come up with was Ketanji Brown “DEI Hire” Jackson
In fairness, the criteria were three: Black, female, and left leaning(or actually left committed). But Brown seems to be the best they could find. As terrible a dunce as she continues to be it reflects on how incompetent Biden’s handlers were and how hard it must have been to find a competent intelligent candidate given those selection criteria.
Jackson certainly became the Justice the Democrats hoped and prayed for.
Jackson came.across as screeching, abrasive and petulant today. From what I heard listening to the questioning today Sec 2 VRA is not gonna go unscathed. It may not be gutted entirely but there seems to be a clear 6 vote majority for scaling it back way past what it has effectively become; raise a Sec 2 claim and the effective de facto presumption is that the remedy must be drawing a majority minority CD. At minimum that de facto presumption is gonna go and claimants are gonna have to make far more persuasive, evidence based arguments to demonstrate that Sec 2 should be used instead of 14A. The unspoken issue with forcing a majority minority CD from Sec 2 is that the basis of the argument; insufficient crossover voting and that differential race based interests even among d/prog require a majority minority CD so that ‘black’ voters can elect ‘the candidate of their choice’ runs headlong into a form of mirror test. IOW even if a harm exists what using Sec 2 does is redirect the harm away from ‘black’ voters to everyone else. Sec.2 as currently implemented doesn’t end the harm. It’s as if there’s a live grenade and A throws it B. The grenade will still detonate, the only difference is the party harmed. I would suggest that using race as the basis for directing who is to be harmed is not proper under 14A and that a far less intrusive, race neutral approach is the better option.
You’re probably correct as to the likely result, but its all 100% garbage.
It’ll open the door to endless litigation in most States every time district lines are redrawn, and race will be front and center every time.
I’m hoping the majority are as cowardly as this, and simply do away with it entirely.
I know, overly optimistic. Not holding my breath, though.
The CT is unlikely to scrap Sec 2 entirely. I’d argue that use of race based remedy under Sec 2 should be limited to the cure of a well documented, evidence laden, proven, intentional/overt race based harm. Otherwise we shouldn’t use it precisely b/c doing so is deliberate injection of race based discrimination.
There’s already litigation every redrawing of CD. As the population shifts and States gain/lose CD they gotta draw new districts to match the new population. By limiting what is today an effectively de facto presumption that where a Sec 2 claim is made and a ‘majority minority’ district COULD be drawn that it SHOULD be drawn ..SCOTUS will solve most of the problems. It would change the presumptions and more/less shift the burden to the claimant to show that a Sec 2 based ‘majority minority’ CD is the only remedy possible v it being the presumptive remedy.
By her reasoning, since I live in a minority majority town and county I don’t get proper representation because I’m white? She is actually arguing for segregation.
Yeah. The problem with this is that the logic used to create majority minority CD as a ‘cure’ doesn’t actually cure the alleged problem, it only transfers the harm. Oversimplified the logic is that members of group A can’t get a fair shake in electing members of group A b/c members of group B won’t vote for them. Why won’t they? Because members of group A and group B have race based interests that transcend mere political party affiliation.
If we say OK sure then let’s draw a ‘majority minority’ district where group A is the dominant majority population to solve the problem. The issue is that cure doesn’t solve the issue raised, it merely transfers the claimed harm…now members of group B can’t get their candidate elected in that district b/c the logic of the initial claim is that group A and group B won’t crossover vote and support a candidate which isn’t A member of the other group. (Implicitly the claim goes further to declare that even if they did crossover it would be for a candidate which had to ‘downplay’ the special group membership issues which require a group member to adequately understand/represent them).
To your specific point I had a blast tweaking leftists when I lived in El Paso about my ‘minority’ status in a majority hispanic City/County.
The problem is that there IS NO group A or B, there is only group H. Everyone is group H.
But the Democrats and the left can only flourish if they can shatter group H into thousands of warring fragments.
By race.
By class
By sex
By faith
And they are heavily invested in this –at one point they wanted to use one of those fragments of group H as draft animals. Currently they want to use ALL of group H, besides their leaders, of course, as barely paid indentured servants without any rights except the right to vote for them.
But the important part here is that these minority majority districts exist because THEY won’t vote for a candidate that does not look like them.
Agreed, the entire basis of ‘group membership’ and ‘group rights’ is offensive and IMO should be unconstitutional as the basis for any claim otherwise than one where overt, active, intentional discrimination against a member of that ‘group’ has been clearly established. Then the particular individual(s) impacted can seek a narrow cure specific to their claimed harm.
Unfortunately we’re probably a generation away from getting our jurisprudence to that point. I’d settle for retaining Sec 2 but with very strict limits on imposing ‘majority minority’ districts as a remedy which would effectively end the current status quo where there’s a de facto presumption that if a ‘majority minority’ district could be drawn that it should or often must be drawn.
Apparently the argument is that you are represented by all the people who look like you and are elected from other districts, by voters who look like you and therefore must surely share all of your interests.
I’m not joking, that was the actual decision of a court back in the 1970s!
“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”
Not if your Action Jackson. She is that loud black woman who ticks all the stereotype boxes. She thinks if she keeps running her mouth no matter how stupid she is it will eventually wear you out and you will just give up. Hey, got her this far.
quote:
“Let’s put a rtard in the Supreme Court!
What could possibly go wrong?”
We’re finding out.
Well bless her heart
Can we see if the Auto pen signed her nomination, please?
Geez.
When I compared excluding men from women’s sports teams to determining who was allowed to enter the Special Olympics (both of which I approve, by the way), I got jumped on.
Instead of being nominated to the Supreme Court.
Youse guys is so unfair.
I would be interested in knowing which racial group(s) she considers disabled or somehow inferior, that they require special access.
“Access” is a slippery buzzword that the left uses to formulate rights that don’t otherwise exist and to justify mandates and coercion. Here, KBJ asserts that if one’s vote does not prevail in a district, that indicates no access to vote. Obamacare was supposed to address and remedy lack of access to health care. Eliminating academic admissions tests supposedly creates access to education. KBJ is well-schooled in Newspeak, if not much else.
From far off in the gathering gloom, the ghost of G. Harrold Carswell guffaws… spookily.
she’s been genetically denied access to intelligence
Is she saying that black people in America are simply too stupid to be expected to register and show up to the polls like members of every other race? I can’t come to any other conclusion from her argument.
Um, no. If she were saying that then majority-minority districts wouldn’t help them. She’s saying that black people in America are simply too few to get elected, since no one who isn’t black would ever vote for one. And since there is a right to be elected, hiding somewhere in the constitution or the civil rights laws, special districts must be drawn which have enough black voters to ensure that a black person wins, because of course black people won’t vote for white candidates. Or something. Of course this means that the white people in those districts are incapable of being elected, but that’s OK because reasons.
“black people won’t vote for white candidates. ”
BS. Example is Steny Hoyer’s district
https://ballotpedia.org/Michelle_Talkington
It is democrat gerrymandered.
If you have a question about voting for the Republican Senate Candidate congratulations on this wakeup call.
Not quite as black/white as you make it seem.
1. The vote in Senate Judiciary Committee was tied so there was no recommendation to move to a floor vote.
2. Three GoP Senators joined all d/prog to vote for approval of a discharge petition to move the nomination forward from where it stalled in the Judiciary Committee to the floor.
3. The same three GoP Senators voted to overcome the filibuster mounted by the rest of the GoP in opposition to bringing her nomination to a vote.
4. These three GoP Senators then voted to approve her nomination.
Murkowski, Romney and Collins. I can occasionally see that a GoP Senator from blue tilted Maine will need to break ranks. Alaska or Utah? Oh hell no.
This is where the GoP electorate is gonna eventually have to find some weak sauce/rino GoP Senator to use as an object lesson in a general election and refuse to vote for them where the loss of that Senate seat probably won’t swing immediate control of the Senate to the d/prog. We gotta stop electing and then tolerating GoP Senators who are less Red/Based/MAGA than their State. It’s the flip side of the same coin where we gotta accept that a GoP Senator from a Purple or Blue State isn’t gonna be an automatic GoP vote on every issue/nomination as if they represented a greater than +5 Red State.
Wow, I knew she was dumb, but this is mega-dumb.
Meh. It’s no dumber than we’ve come to expect from her.
You’re both right.
Creating minority majority districts is an attempt to assure electoral victories to the minority that’s the majority in the district. This is completely undemocratic, because in a democracy the minority is supposed to lose. It shouldn’t matter whether the minority is a race, a religion, or a political party – nobody has a right to an assured win in an election, not even the majority political party.
This oral argument contains at least one more “I don’t understand” to add to the compendium of judicial lowlights uttered by this loquacious moron.
Compliments of Autopen, RINOs, and the Idiot Kindergarten Party.
Apart from all other arguments, here’s why this is wrong even if we were to assume her premises were correct. Nothing in the 14th amendment forbids Congress from making laws discriminating against the abled and in favor of the disabled. Discrimination is not illegal, and not unconstitutional. It may be ill-advised, but if Congress wishes to make laws discriminating on the basis of some characteristic it may do so. Except (according to the Supreme Court) in the case of race, religion, national origin, sex, and legitimacy of birth. Plus, in the case of states, citizenship; Congress can discriminate against aliens but states can’t.
So, even assuming Jackson’s analogy were in all other respects valid, Congress can discriminate on the basis of ability, but not on the basis of race.
No, she didn’t say that. What she said was that without such districts they “don’t have equal access to the voting system”, whatever that means.
What it appears to mean is that they can vote, but without such districts black candidates can’t win. But no one has a right to win an election. There’s a right to vote, and if a candidate gets enough votes he is elected.
The hidden premise here is that black candidates can’t be elected without a black majority in their district, because white people won’t vote for black candidates. The fact that there are black senators, and black representatives of majority-white districts, as well as black governors, mayors, etc., and there has been a black president, proves otherwise. But even if it didn’t, tough luck. There is no such thing as a right to win an election.
This woman is going to be on the court for a looooong time.
I don’t know, She is dumb enough to maybe take a Tide Pod challenge or something.
“.looooong time”. Well that depends, If we correlate longevity to functional neurons, she’s just behind Joe Biden
Black candidates running on a program acceptable to whites would solve it. You’d get black winners.
Not really, Dems have gerrymanders to make sure this does not happen.
Either her white, surgeon husband is a total cuck, or she is something else in bed with the lights off.
She is not dumb. She is reinforcing the reason why the Voting Rights Act should not be thrown in the dust bin of opinions that have outlived their intent.
What percentage of the LA state government is non-white? The answer is the reason the Voting Rights Act is past its sell date. But when a Justice makes conclusory statements that blacks have limitation to accessing the voting booth, it makes it impossible for a state to hold free and fair elections.
And that’s why she was installed.
Has anyone looked at her mortgage loan applications?
Think about the huberious and bigotry when you think a race has to have a carve out.
black people are in many cases disabled
many apply for every single government assist program available + disabled in one form or another
I might be thinking Jackson is just a squirrel in this case. I am watching the case.
https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/supreme-court-hears-case-on-racial-gerrymandering-voting-rights/664542
Jania Nelson was impressive IMO. Even thought she is not on my side, I would take her over Jackson as a SC justice in a minute. (but that does not say much).
Benjamin Aguinaga was weak. Jackson sounds like an idiot. What you point out in this thread is 10 times worst if you listen to the whole thing. Edward Greim seems ok, but he comes across weak.
Janai Nelson sorry misspelled her name. Sotomayor come across as a blow hard. I can’t wait for her to move on to something else. Jackson is entertainment material. Sototmayor is just plain bad that is taken serious (or she think she is).
Wow, Hashim Mooppan is had it out with Sotomayor. He sure put her in her place. Mooppan mops the floor with Sotomayor and Jackson teaching them the law.