WATCH: Lawyer Who Took Louisiana Redistricting Fight to SCOTUS Warns of “Rampant Racial Discrimination”
An MSNOW interview on Saturday turned into another perfect example of how the left discusses elections when courts stop Democrats from using race as a political weapon.
The interview featured Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who argued before the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais. The case centered on Louisiana’s congressional map and whether the state could draw districts with race as a driving factor under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled against Louisiana’s race-based map and held that compliance with the Voting Rights Act could not justify race-based districting in the way lower courts had allowed.
Nelson went on MSNOW as protests were taking place in Alabama and other parts of the country over the ruling. She claimed the decision would lead to “catastrophic” consequences, “rampant disenfranchisement,” and “rampant racial discrimination” across the South.
But the left’s outrage exposes the real issue.
Democrats are not angry because voters are being denied the right to vote. They are angry because the Supreme Court rejected the idea that Americans should be sorted into congressional districts by race.
When Democrats benefit from race-based maps, they call it “representation.” When Republicans challenge those maps, Democrats call it “voter suppression.”
The Supreme Court did not take away anyone’s ballot. It did not stop anyone from voting. It pushed back against the idea that race should dominate how states draw political boundaries. The National Constitution Center described the decision as one that narrowed states’ ability to use race as a determining factor in redistricting.
That should be common sense.
America is not supposed to divide citizens by skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, or any other identity category. Yet Democrats increasingly view every political question through race. If one district becomes more competitive, they call it racism.
If one racial group does not produce the exact electoral outcome Democrats want, they call it discrimination. If courts stop race-based districting, they accuse the judiciary of destroying democracy.
Nelson even argued that the justice system needs “dire reform.”
Democrats have spent years threatening to pack the Supreme Court when they cannot win cases under the current Constitution. Court packing would not save democracy. It would destroy the independence of the judiciary by turning the Supreme Court into another partisan branch of government.
Gerrymandering has always been political. Democrats have drawn aggressive maps in states such as Illinois, Maryland, New York, and California for years. But when Republicans fight back, the left suddenly pretends the republic is collapsing.
The Supreme Court stood for a basic principle: Americans should not be divided by race for political power. The left is furious because that principle threatens one of its favorite electoral weapons.
The Patriot Perspective has recently switched its main platform from YouTube, and we would greatly appreciate it if you subscribed to us there. [HERE]
The post Lawyer Who Took Louisiana Redistricting Fight to Supreme Court Now Warns of “Rampant Racial Discrimination” appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
