Supreme Court judge and DEI hire Ketanji Brown meltdown after yelling at Jackson Solicitor General

Web Desk,

Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source

DEI Hyer and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had a rough time in oral arguments.

Because this can be a little complicated, here’s a quick summary to get you up to speed:

  • A big case was heard in the Supreme Court this week Voting Rights Act of 1965Focusing on whether states can legally draw electoral maps based on race.
  • Case, Louisiana vs. CalaisChallenges the creation of Second majority-black district under louisiana section 2 The VRA, which prohibits voting practices that dilute minority voting power.
  • A three judge federal panel Louisiana was previously ordered to add a second majority-Black district in 2024 after white voters filed a lawsuit.
  • During oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged in many heated argument with Louisiana Solicitor General BenjaminInterrupting again and again and raising her voice.
  • Jackson argued that states have a Compelling interest in eliminating racial discrimination While voting, Aguinaga argued that plaintiffs in previous cases were simply requesting an additional majority-black district.
  • The Justice stressed that the key is to identify and address voting discrimination. separate legal stepsPushing back forcefully against Aguinaga’s framing.
  • Conservative majority, including Justice Clarence Thomashave expressed doubts about racial redistributionQuestioning whether section 2 remains constitutional in that context.
  • a decision Limiting caste-based districting may be quite Limit the reach of the Voting Rights ActReshaping redistricting laws nationwide.
  • such a decision may be taken Empowering Republican-led states Redrawing maps with less race-based considerations – potentially creating some Democratic districts more competitive,
  • could have resulted Major implications for the 2026 midterm elections And beyond that, affecting both federal and state-level representation.

As the saying goes, sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s a picture to show you what’s at stake and why anti-racist Ketanji Brown Jackson is so upset:

Now listen to how badly DEI Jackson handles this with her “trust me brother” argument:

Justice Jackson:
Wait, so can I just ask you why it is not in the state’s compelling interest to identify the areas where this problem is occurring?

Advocate:
Of course, as this Court has recognized, your Honor sffaStates can remedy intentional discrimination by-

Justice Jackson:
No, I am not talking about solutions.

Advocate:
that they-

Justice Jackson:
I am talking about-

Advocate:
They can identify.

Justice Jackson:
identify.

Advocate:
Absolutely.

Ok. So if I’m correct that Section 2 is about identifying the problem and then requiring some remedy, I don’t understand why your answer to Justice Kagan’s question is, “Is this a compelling state interest?” There is none. The answer is obviously yes – that you have an interest in addressing the effects of racial discrimination that we identify using this tool.

Whether you go too far in your treatments is another issue, isn’t it?

Advocate:
Your Honor, I think this was the first step in all these matters – it was certainly the first step robinson Litigation – The plaintiffs came and said, “We want another majority-black district.”

Justice Jackson:
I thought they came in and said, “We’re not getting an equal electoral opportunity because our votes are being diluted.”

Advocate:
That’s the same way of saying, “We deserve a second majority district.”

Justice Jackson:
No, it’s not, because – uh, again, just trust me on this – the second district is a solution that can be offered to the problem that we’ve identified.

and complete robinson The lawsuit was about identifying the problem. “Is this really happening?”

In many Section 2 cases, the court says, “You are wrong. You are right. You are not being denied any electoral opportunity. Go away.”

In this case, the court said, “I’m looking. I’m looking at the factors. I appreciate what you’re saying. You’ve proven that we have this problem, and so the next question is: How do we solve it?”

Advocate:
Correct. And Justice Jackson, the problem the Central District identified was not intentional discrimination. And, really, I feel when I hear-

Justice Jackson:
Why do you need intentional discrimination to solve the problem I’ve identified?

Advocate:
Because if you’re going to use race that way robinson Appellants want the court to use race in drawing another majority-minority district, you must have a compelling interest.

Justice Jackson:
Thank you.

chief Justice:
Time out. Thank you, Sir Chief Justice.

Clerk:
Thank you, lawyer.

chief Justice:
Mr. Grimm?

Back up here if necessary:

more here:

It is absolutely shameful that she is actually a Supreme Court judge.

ALSO READ  Danger and passion with greed. WLT Report

what a joke!

United States