SCOTUS INSANITY: Watch Biden’s DEI Hire Argue In Favour Of An Unconstitutional (And Racist!) Precedent

Ever since they lost the majority of the Supreme Court, the left has been raging about the ‘disqualified’ and ‘corrupt’ court. You’ll notice they never criticize Dem appointees, even when they start talking nonsense like this:

Things I didn’t have on my bingo card today: Justice Jackson defending the racist Black Codes as precedent for what we should consider constitutional. pic.twitter.com/I9yxcMsDrf

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) January 20, 2026

For a little context to KBJ’s support of the principles in a rule that has been overturned as unconstitutional, here’s how the NYPost introduced a story on the topic:

Supreme Court justices were stunned Tuesday when lawyers defending Hawaii’s so-called “vampire rule” — which restricts carrying guns on privately owned spaces without consent — pointed to racist laws in their defense of gun control.

During their arguments, the lawyers had cited the Black Codes, post-Civil War segregationist laws that limited the rights of African Americans, as evidence of a tradition of similarly restrictive gun control in US history.

“I want to understand how you think Black Codes should inform this court’s decision-making. It’s quite astonishing,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed attorney Neal Katyal. – NYPost

And from the gun-grabber’s perspective, it got better (or worse) from there.

The attorney, who defended Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” further contended that the debate around the Black Codes in the 1800s also proved that it was understood at the time “you have no right to carry a firearm onto someone’s property absent their consent.”

But conservative Justice Samuel Alito asked, “Wasn’t the purpose of the laws in the post-reconstruction South that disarmed black people precisely to prevent them from doing what the Second Amendment is designed to protect?”

“They wanted to disarm the black population in order to help the [Klu Klux] Klan terrorize them,” he went on. “They wanted to put them at the mercy of racist law enforcement officers. So is it not the height of irony to cite [that]?”

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas later chimed in and highlighted the fact that the 14th Amendment was later enacted to counter racist laws like the Black Codes, which could complicate the case for Hawaii.

Oof.

Black codes and Jim Crow laws were laws passed at different periods in the southern United States to enforce racial segregation and curtail the power of Black voters.

After the Civil War ended in 1865, some states passed black codes that severely limited the rights of Black people, many of whom had been enslaved. These codes limited what jobs African Americans could hold, and their ability to leave a job once hired. Some states also restricted the kind of property Black people could own. The Reconstruction Act of 1867 weakened the effect of the Black codes by requiring all states to uphold equal protection under the 14th Amendment, particularly by enabling Black men to vote. (U.S. law prevented women of any race from voting in federal elections until 1920.) — National Geographic

A quick search of ‘Black Codes’ will show any number of instances in which it is forbidden for blacks or slaves to do many things that other men can do freely, including owning weapons. Since the whole point of the Second Amendment is rooted in the logic of Natural Law and the right of an individual to defend himself from harm of any kind, it follows that any right one man has to defend his person from a threat is every bit as valid when another man, whatever the differences in appearance, exercises his right to self-defence.

It’s hard to imagine anyone who rose to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land to treat as serious arguments, rules and norms that were embedded in legal precedents bent on upholding what is widely viewed as the greatest moral stain of early American history.

But taking a step back, we are looking at someone who was chosen in the Biden era, when nominees were prioritized for their partisan activism, not their value as an impartial judge.

Is it really that hard to imagine that, in the service of a core Dem cause (in this case, curbing the use of 2A rights), she is willing to grab at any straw that might strengthen her case, no matter how corrupt its origin, or discredited its rationale?

We leave that question unanswered, as something for the reader to contemplate.