Posted on 05/02/2026 12:16:05 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, barring racial gerrymandering, has many on the left feigning vapors, despite the predictions of many of us that this result was likely.
While figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared that the court itself has been “gerrymandered” to rig the upcoming elections, this decision is actually the culmination of decades of jurisprudence by various justices — particularly Chief Justice John Roberts.
Indeed, the decision will cement the legacy of the Roberts Court in moving the country toward a colorblind system of laws.
Like most Americans, Roberts abhors racial discrimination in any form. He holds the quaint idea that when the drafters of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of race, they meant it. This is why, in 2006, Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Roberts sees no difference between such discrimination when it disfavors one or another race. It is all a sordid business, and he has spent decades writing eloquent arguments for the court to abandon its conflicted and hypocritical approach to racial discrimination.
The court has struggled to rationalize using race to discriminate when it serves a higher purpose, such as greater equity or affirmative action. Some of those opinions were constitutionally incomprehensible.
For example, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court divided five to four on whether to uphold racial admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Few of us could understand how O’Connor found a type...
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Carville had a caniption over this.....it was hysterical. 😁
When people like him and hyme ratskin are in an uproar you know it’s a good thing for America.
Leftist Judges delayed this ruling until it was too late for the Midterms.
Yet he will vote to keep birth right citizenship which to me is racists.
In a racis’ sorta way?
They tried to but that has failed in Louisiana, failed in Alabama, looks like it will fail in Tennessee, South Carolina and Mississippi (Missouri, North Carolina, Texas and Florida already redistricted) and that leaves only Georgia. The Georgie RINOs claimed they were going to stick with the current maps but the civil rights division of the Justice Department have said they will enforce this ruling.....meaning Georgia may be forced to redistrict and get rid of its 5 majority minority districts.
Keeping black, meaning democrat districts was a “compelling state interest” donch’a know.
I can’t wrap my mind around the entirety of horrid laws passed these past 60 years due to unconstitutional reading of the 14A and Voting/Civil Rights Acts.
Laws that were passed by slim democrat majorities all these years. Decades of blacks inciting racial hatred and judges drawing congressional districts that ensured democrat congressmen and civil strife.
Piss on the Warren Court for what it did to our republic.
In this case, the Governor of Louisiana used the ruling to delay Primaries until they could come up with a way to comply.
When the demoncRATS are gnashing their teeth, you know the ruling was a good one.
The original Constitution—its structure, its Preamble, and especially the Bill of Rights—already contains the universal architecture of American freedom. Every amendment added afterward, even restorative ones, inevitably alters that original balance and therefore risks weakening freedom for some portion of the population.
The Preamble establishes the Constitution’s universal intent: justice, liberty, and the protection of rights for all CITIZENS. The first ten amendments operationalize that intent with specific, enforceable limits on government power, preventing the very abuses described in the Declaration of Independence. This framework is complete and universal.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were necessary only because the nation violated the Constitution’s purpose, not because the original design was insufficient. Yet even these restorative amendments reshaped the legal environment for all citizens, because any constitutional change redistributes authority between individuals, states, and the federal government.
Structural amendments that go beyond restoring natural rights—such as those altering representation, taxation, or federal power—shift the system further from its original universal design.
Thus, once the Constitution’s original principles are applied universally, additional amendments become not only unnecessary but potentially destabilizing.
It has become obvious that opposition to the so-called "civil" "rights" "movement", and to the laws enacted in its name, was the correct position. Michael "Martin Luther" King's legacy is Affirmative Action, DEI, and racial strife.
Thank you, Chief Justice.
The fairest way, in my opinion is to go GEOGRAPHICALLY.
If one doesn’t like the way things are going in a district...one can MOVE.
One CANNOT CHANGE THE COLOR OF ONE’S SKIN.
Democrats have been doing this since the 2000s.
See the FR thread Collusion Memos from November 2003.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.