Posted on 05/03/2026 8:33:52 AM PDT by TBP
The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais took 36 pages to explain why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is about combating intentional racial discrimination, not allowing racial gerrymandering. However, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrapped it up in one word: "illegitimate."
Jeffries was not speaking of the case, but of the court. The man who would become the next speaker of the House if Democrats retake power in November has joined other radicals in denying the legitimacy of the nation's highest court.
Just for the record, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2, but it said neither the law nor the Constitution allows legislators to manipulate district lines to guarantee that candidates of a particular race will be elected. It was written not to give any race an advantage, but to prevent a state from creating a disadvantage for voters based on their race. The act prevents any state from intentionally drawing districts "to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."
This is a matter upon which people of good faith can disagree. Many of the justices have long opposed racial criteria in areas ranging from college admissions to voting districts. Chief Justice John Roberts stated it bluntly in 2006: "It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." Like others, Roberts abhors racial discrimination but declared in another case that "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.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
I’ve literally encountered 12 year olds with more maturity than this lot.
Well, we all know that court’s decision in favor of democrats is honest and legitimate and courts that decide in favor of republicans are crooked and illegitimate...
There is one undeniable fact about liberals, they hate anything not liberal. There are also people on conservative side who use litmus test for every issue and reject anyone not 100% congruent with their issues. No wonder Democrats have a great chance to win Congress in November. Conservatives keep thinking their ranks.
The other thing is they REALLY hate liberals who are not liberal enough for them.
Yep. I've said it many times on this forum because it is so obvious to me: you'll never end discrimination by discriminating.
Guess to them its NOT the highest court.....
Turley: “Just for the record, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act, which is about combating intentional racial discrimination”.....NOT about artificial, politically-calculated racial gerrymandering.
“The Court did say neither the law nor the Constitution allows legislators to manipulate district lines to guarantee that candidates of a particular race will be elected.”
“The VRA was written not to give any race an advantage, but to prevent a state from creating a disadvantage for voters based on their race. The Act prevents any state from intentionally drawing districts ;to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.’”
Libtards are such spoiled a-holes.
Well, the three ringpieces appointed by democrats are certainly illegit.
I’ve got commie fatigue.
Hey!
Did not the Southern Democrats declare the Lincoln election as an illegitimate one?
Hakeem owes everyone who reads this article $100,000.00 reparations.
The worse truth is that is is NOT about liberal or conservative, it is not about ideology or philosophy. It is about what The Party says Today. Exactly as George Orwell foresaw, Truth is as malleable as bread dough, and can be made.into any shape at a moment’s notice. We grew up with Liberals fighting to establish protection and dignity for women and women’s sports, and woke up one morning to find that Transsexuals are the most sacred people on the planet, and always have been, and anyone who challenges this Eternal Truth is a Very, Very Dangerous, Violent UltraRadical Nazi bent on undermining the Very Foundations of Our Precious Democracy. Which sounds precisely like the crap Winston Smith was tasked with spewing out on demand.
There is no principle on the Left but Power. By Any Means Necessary. All else is bluster and theatrical fiction, the script to be rewritten moment to moment as strategic needs dictate.
The most profoundly disturbing aspect of it is how readily our friends, family and coworkers nod their heads in assent, never even registering that their minds have been changed while they slept.
It does not bode well for the future of the human race.
Calling the court illegitimate is the left’s latest assault on the Constitution [, another attempt to preserve elite Democratic and RINO ongoing abuse of Congress's 16th Amendment powers (direct taxes)].
There! Fixed it.
As a side note to this thread, please consider the following analysis from related threads.
Patriots need to get up to speed with the relatively simple Madison Test, now forgotten to history, to understand that probably most federal government spending is unconstitutional, especially since the ratification of the Progressive Era 16th Amendment (16A; direct taxes) and 17th (17A; popular vote for federal senators) Amendments.
Regarding 16&17A, most post-17A ratification federal lawmakers discovered long ago that they could promise voters who have evidently never really studied the fed's constitutionally limited powers every unconstitutional federal social spending program under the sun to get themselves elected. Constitutionally naïve voters eventually took the bait and elected these crooks, and then reelected them!
Then once in office, criminal-minded lawmakers abuse their 16A powers by simply fulfilling their campaign promises for unconstitutional federal spending, scandalously ignoring their constitutional Article I, Section 8 spending limits when doing so.
About 16&17A versus the Madison Test, those amendments effectively repealing the whole Constitution imo, note that the 14th Congress in the time of President James Madison (4th pres.), Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had found some EXISTING tax revenues and got all happy about spending it. So Congress drafted the Bonus Bill of 1817 to use the taxpayer dollars to improve military readiness and commerce by authorizing the construction of roads and canals intended to facilitate moving troops and manufactured goods. But Congress had based the bill solely on the General Welfare Clause (GWC) which turned out to be a BIG mistake.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States [emphasis added]; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
More specifically, while Madison AGREED with Congress that the bill would improve transportation, he diplomatically clarified in his veto explanation that while the GWC authorizes Congress to tax and spend, he reminded Congress that the Constitution's drafters, Madison himself a major player, had intended for the clauses that followed it in Section 8 to limit what Congress could spend tax dollars for, no mention of roads and canals for Congress's purpose for the Bonus Bill. Madison also noted that the bonus bill didn't even pass Congress's traditional "wild card" excuse for justifying spending, the infamous "Necessary and Proper Clause."
The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation within the power to make laws necessary and proper [emphasis added] for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States. —President James Madison, March 3, 1817: Veto Message on the Internal Improvements Bill
In fact, note that the only roads that the Founders expressly gave Congress the specific power to authorize are postal roads.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; It is one of a few government agencies explicitly authorized by the Constitution of the United States. (non-FR)
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Note Thomas Jefferson's advice on interpreting Congress's limited powers complimented Madison's veto.
In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids. —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
It's also no surprise that the Constitution's drafters regarded Congress's constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to be a reasonably small enough burden on lawmakers' time that they constitutionally required lawmakers to minimally meet only once a year.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year [emphasis added], and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
That being said, most federal domestic policy, including vote-buying spending and funding, is now based on stolen state powers and likewise stolen state revenues uniquely associated with those powers (people's wallets), tax dollars based on Congress ongoing abuse of its 16A powers.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution [all emphases added], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824. (Abuse of 16A)
The congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as follows.
Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen [all emphases added], under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country. —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
(Again) From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. —United States v. Butler, 1936.
16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived [emphasis added], without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature. —Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Again, 16A is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for organized crime, front-ended by deep state Congress, and desperately needs to be repealed.
Can you imagine what these SOB’s will be like if they take over?
While history does not repeat itself perfectly, it does rhyme. Today the Free Republic of the founding fathers is disintegrating just as the Roman Republic of the first century BC became an autocratic empire due to civil war and crossing of the Rubicon by Julius Caesar.
The United States is nearing its Rubicon moment. The far left progressives who dominate the Democrat party have made it clear they despise the vision of the founding fathers, consider the Constitution as written illegitimate, consider the state supreme to the individual, and are fully prepare to violate laws and the Constitution in order to seize and exercise power permanently.
The four year reign of the puppet Joe Biden provided some visibility of how far progressives are willing to go to attain their objectives. Since losing power in the 2024 election their rhetoric has become even more shrill and more anti individual liberty. Biden, due to his advanced age, dementia, and poor intellect, was the wrong leader to orchestrate the American Rubicon moment. Despite his unprecedented electoral victory in the 2020 election steal, he never had sufficient popular support, intellectual horsepower, or energy to pull off the planned seizing of absolute power by the progressive left.
However, the work behind the scenes is clearly underway to seize Congress in the 2026 election cycle and then seize the White House in 2028. They have already clearly stated if they secure the White House and Congress in 2028, they will immediately increase the size of the Supreme Court and install a far left majority which will effectively give them control of all three branches of the federal government. They will then add the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states to ensure electoral victory in all elections well into the future. Borders will be reopened and fast pathways to citizenship for all immigrants, legal or illegal, will become law. A progressive dominated enlarged Supreme Court will work in tandem with the left wing Congress and White House to rubber stamp any law passed.
Likely the Rubicon moment will be the appointment of a carefully selected commission to write a new 21st century Constitution. Instead of a government designed to preserve and protect the God given natural rights of the people, the new Constitution will install an all powerful government of elites. There will be no “natural rights” because God will not be recognized and religious freedom will not be protected. The new central all powerful government will not protect rights of citizens it will instead grant and retract privileges based on race, ethnicity, gender, political alignment, as well as the needs of the state at particular movements in time.
Elections will be for window dressing only with candidates chosen in closed rooms and outcomes predetermined by the vote counters. Any dissent will be carefully orchestrated, controlled and again executed for window dressing to give the appearance of freedom that does not exist. We can already see in Europe and Canada the controls that will be imposed on US citizens. Thought crimes and behaviors the state deems offensive will be punished though loss of privileges (jobs, housing, bank accounts, and mobility). Enemies of the state will be punished with imprisonment and state imposed euthanasia. Elderly citizens classified as members of groups deemed unworthy by the state will be denied life extending healthcare and over time will be terminated through forced euthanasia by the medical system.
The key question is how will the American people react to the shock and awe transformation of our governance and society in a 6 month period following a 2028 election consolidating power in one political party which is already prepared to seize absolute power? Likely at least half the people will immediately accept the chains because they are dependent on the state or are fully invested in the progressive social justice culture. There may be another 20-30% of the population who capitulates out of fear or indifference to politics. Will the remaining 20-30% fight back or will they capitulate like the citizens of Canada did when the truckers tried to stand up against government tyranny?
Some historians have stated only about 30% of the citizens of the British colonies of North America supported the American Revolution. Without the support of French troops, French funding, and the French navy the American revolutionaries would have failed. Can a minority of 30% of the population, without foreign support, prevail in rebelling against a progressive dictatorship controlling the military and the government infrastructure? The economy of the British colonies was primarily agrarian so the revolutionaries of the 1700’s were highly self reliant for food and had the ability to disappear unseen into the forests when British troops advanced. In addition transportation was slow and difficult and the British government in 1776 lacked the tools of surveillance, communication, and economic control a 21st century government power structure commands. Even with the help of the French government, it required 6 long difficult years from 1776 to 1783 for the American colonies to prevail against the British government. No doubt the leadership of today’s progressives are counting on American conservatives to capitulate once they control the levers of power and can easily identify and remove anyone opposing them.
Jeffries, James Carville, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and others are clearly communicating how they intend to govern. Gavin Newsom’s concept of authoritarian government is already playing out in California and other western states (Oregon, Washington, and Colorado). We live at a pivotal moment in American history and unfortunately the negative economic impact of the Iran War may tilt the electoral scales enough in November 2026 to ensure a Democrat majority is elected in both the House of Representatives and US Senate. Two years of gridlock in Washington, possibly a deep economic recession combined with high inflation, and an unpopular unresolved Iran war almost certainly would result in the 2028 election of a Democrat president, large majority in the House, and possibly a filibuster proof US Senate. Shock and awe will then occur with no institutional roadblocks.
Jeffries a propaganda whore for the party and media approved hustling for a presidential run.
Knuckle head voters put him in office and proud of it.
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.