SCOTUS: Dem Appointees Struggled BADLY In The Louisiana Redistricting Case

There is a fight in Lousiana over redistricting. Some argue that it is critical to make racial demographics of the voting district an important component in deciding how redistricting works. Others argue that this unjustly distinguishes between citizens based on explicit considerations of race.

Depending on how this ruling shakes out, the longstanding habit of folks like Eric Holder and Marc Elias to cherrypick states where GOP has a lead, and insist that districts be redrawn to conform with certain racial demographic expectations to inflate their DNC representation in Congress could hit a wall, or worse still (from their perspective) even reverse some of the gains they have made in recent years.

We know this fight matters to them by how desperately Newsome, Pritzker, and the Texas Truant Democrats freaked out when Texas announced they would be looking at redrawing their maps, or how they freak out when it is announced that ONLY citizens should be counted in terms of Congressional and Electoral College share of representation, and funding models. Packing your state with illegals, even if they can’t vote, amplifies your voice and power in the Union, which is part of their theory of how to quietly turn America into a one-party leftist state.

In other words, there is a LOT more riding on this decision than where some lines on an electoral map in Louisiana happen to shake out.

Oral arguments showed some moments where the Democrat appointees wound up WAY out of their depths in the facts of this case, as evidenced by interactions like this one with Sotomayor, whose own racial biases were once infamously highlighted by her ‘wise latina‘ remark:

BREAKING: Liberal SCOTUS Justice Sotomayor’s defense of race based black Congressional districts gets utterly demolished in brutal oral arguments before the full court!

She is too dumb to be a Judge. pic.twitter.com/sUMmtbvcVr

— Gunther Eagleman™ (@GuntherEagleman) October 15, 2025

Biden’s nominee, whose race and gender were known LONG before any announcement of which nominee would meet his approval, seems to have it in her head that race and disability are, in some sense, interchangeable in the eyes of the law. Which is most unfortunate for the vast number of the people from this or that ethnicity who do NOT see themselves as having some kind of a lifelong disability.

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

Especially in a day and age where these decisions are being made AFTER America had voted in large numbers to not only elect one Barack Obama as president, but to Re-Elect him as well.

On the other side of the ledger, we have a summary of Thomas and Alito pushing back on claims being made by the NAACP:

Profilo: Behind closed doors, today’s Supreme Court arguments were tense. Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito went head-to-head with the NAACP and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson over the use of race in drawing congressional maps. The case centers on whether the Voting Rights Act still allows race-based redistricting — a tool Democrats have long used to cement control in key states.
Thomas pressed hard, saying the VRA was meant to protect voters, not political interests. Alito backed him, warning that “permanent racial classifications” were poisoning democracy. Jackson fired back, arguing that race can’t be separated from history — but insiders say her tone grew defensive as Thomas dismantled her legal logic point by point.
By the end, it was clear: the conservative bloc is signaling the end of race-driven map-making, and the NAACP knows it. For decades, they used the VRA as a shield for partisan power. Today, that shield cracked (source)

An excerpt from Mark Meuser’s tweet explained exactly why the ruling scares the Democrats:

Here’s what’s at stake: for years, federal courts have interpreted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to require states to gerrymander congressional districts so minority groups are virtually guaranteed the ability to elect a representative of their same race. Callais challenges that approach, arguing that the current interpretation of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it forces states to make race the predominant factor in drawing district lines.

Democratic-aligned advocacy groups have weaponized this reading of the VRA to carve out safe Democratic seats. Instead of drawing compact districts that follow cities, counties, and communities of interest, states are pressured to create bizarre, snake-like districts designed to hit racial targets. The result is a distorted Congress. In 2024, Donald Trump won the presidential election decisively, yet Republicans hold only a razor-thin margin in the House. That mismatch is not by chance.
[…] When districts are drawn to guarantee that one party always wins, it shifts power away from the people and toward special interests. It lets political insiders and activist groups pick the politicians who govern us, rather than letting voters choose their representatives.

With Justice Thomas digging into issues like, would the voting lines in that state be drawn differently if race were not a consideration, the racialized foundation of the Democrats’ long-term play for power might be crumbling before our eyes.