After SCOTUS Ruling On Gerrymandering, It’s Time To Elevate Their Security Protocols

Obama, Shumer, Jeffries and pretty much the rest of the Democrat party is losing their minds in the aftermath of an election loss at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case itself was kicked off by two rival court cases in Louisiana. The first case involved a gerrymandered map in which a group of aggrieved black voters claimed to have their Equal Protection clause violated in one drawing of an electoral map. In an unexpected plot twist, white voters made the very same equal protection claim after the explicitly racially motivated redrawing went forward, and they won their case as well. With both rulings in tension, SCOTUS took up the case and struck down some of the assumptions on which Democrats had been cynically redrawing maps along racial lines for years (with a deliberate eye to improving their own electoral fortunes — as Burgess Owens, whose district they conveniently redrew into a D+10, could tell you).

Gerrymandering that is done explicitly with a view toward the racial makeup of its constituents has been ruled as explicitly unconstitutional. There is still a provision for someone who has been harmed by a redrawing to seek redress, but the burden of proof is on them that they have been harmed in some way.

That’s gonna leave a HUGE mark on Dem electoral hopes in places where the maps have been rigged heavily in favor of the left, largely along racial lines.

Obama, who spent the last couple of months shilling for Virginia’s 6-5 purple map to be redrawn as 10-1 blue (to ‘save democracy’ or ‘fairness’ or whatever) is suddenly incensed by this ruling, just like he is ‘incensed’ by red states redrawing electoral maps to counter Virginia’s shameless (and perhaps illegitimate) redraw.

When SCOTUS throws a 9-0 ruling on an issue, they don’t get credit for being an ‘impartial’ court — even when they give a ruling like the one allowing California’s gerrymandering to proceed. Nor do Dems assume that the liberal justices are unreasonably partisan when they vote 6-3 against the redistricting map in Texas despite the 9-0 ruling in support of Cali moving forward with a very similar issue.

Dems had been very good at using the courts to rubber-stamp policies (like gay marriage and abortion) in the courts that could not be passed through the ordinary legislative process. When Kavanaugh, and then ACB were confirmed, there was suddenly a (somewhat) reliable breakwater against liberal policies taking on the force of law through judicial fiat.

Dems get really grumpy when you take their toys away, and from that time they have been invoking dangerous rhetoric about ‘packing the court’ (a redline that even FDR, though tempted, didn’t dare to cross). They have also become increasingly bellicose in both their denunciations of sitting judges (Schumer’s reckless ‘sow the wind/reap the whirlwind’ threats), and the Biden DOJ’s straight refusal to enforce laws on the book forbidding the private homes of judges to be illegally harassed by agitators LARPing as ‘protesters’, when they were really just bullies trying to force a preferred outcome in the court.

For the record — that is precisely the reason such ‘demonstrations’ are a crime. It’s the one branch of government that, in order to fulfill its function it must be FREE of public and political pressures in their deliberations about the law. Without that independence, the American Revolution is little better than the French Revolution, whose disastrous results are plain for all to see.

Here is Temu Obama (or as he described himself in his fundraising email to Epstein, the ‘Brooklyn Obama’), raging after the ruling and calling the courts ‘illegitimate.

Here he is, days after yet another assassination attempt, calling his political rivals ‘extremists’ and claiming that conservatives are somehow trampling the rights of minorities.

Jeffries: "We're now at a point where affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone…" pic.twitter.com/VQOkuDrJN3

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) April 29, 2026

Does he know he’s lying? Of course he does. How could he not.

But he’s counting on the ‘low information voter’, especially the Dems who only reads the headline, or hears the soundbite to pick up on his rhetoric, get whipped into a frenzy, and flock to his support.

Of course, there are OTHER things that someone who gets incensed by increasingly-overheated Democrat allegations of ‘tyranny’, ‘racist’, ‘disenfranchisement’ and ‘end of democracy’.

They can imagine themselves a heroic defenders of the Republic, bravely doing what ‘must be done’ but nobody else has the guts to do.

That was exactly the story the guy behind the Manifesto from the WHCD was telling himself.

And it’s exactly the story the would-be assassin from California who was on his way to murder Kavanaugh and his family was telling himself, too.

Knowing one of the ‘esteemed colleagues’ was deliberately slow-walking the Dobbs decision despite an ongoing known threat to the ‘conservative’ court only makes the seriousness of this threat loom larger.

Protectie detail for the courts need to be expanded.

And fast.