A very good friend whom I respect tremendously (but who lives in a bubble: he is a theater artist) just posted on Facebook:
“I’m heartsick that the Supreme Court–in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines–has now thoroughly gutted the Voting Rights Act. The right-wing majority has just upended legal provisions that for 60 years have helped ensure that you could not be denied political representation because of your race. Republicans will now be free to gerrymander districts with the intent of minimizing Black representation. It’s a disgraceful decision, undoing one of the major accomplishments of the Civil Rights Era.”
Naturally this standard issue progressive lament received immediate hosannas and replies about evil Republicans and racist SCOTUS Justices. Neither my friend, who is not a lawyer, nor any of the angry commenters had read the opinions in the decisions, and it was obvious from their content. I have read the decision and the opinions in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down a clearly racially motivated Louisiana gerrymander. I also discern that only the dissenters, the Wise Latina, the DEI black female, and the smart lesbian who apparently feels obligated to back her progressive sisters even when they are dead wrong, decided on their position based on ideology and partisan loyalty. The six Justices in the majority decided the case based on the law and reality.
The ignorance and bias of the non-lawyers attacking the decision is depressing. Yes, the Voting Rights Act was one of the major accomplishments of the Civil Rights Era, based on the conditions that prevailed during that era. 1965 was 62 years ago. The civil rights workers who were murdered in Mississippi ( the core of the film “Mississippi Burning”) died in 1964, the year before. To understate the case, Southern states are different now, but Democrats have been using the outdated formulas prescribed in a 1965 law to justify anti-white racial discrimination to this day.
In the majority opinion, Justice Alito correctly wrote,
“The question before us now is whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination. To answer that question, we must understand exactly what §2 of the Voting Rights Act demands with respect to the drawing of legislative districts…. §2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race…. In [Rucho], we held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are not justiciable in federal court. The upshot of Rucho was that, as far as federal law is concerned, a state legislature may use partisan advantage as a factor in redistricting. And litigants cannot circumvent that rule by dressing their political-gerrymandering claims in racial garb…. [T]he Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, [so] no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8….”
The whole opinion is worth reading. If one is going to opine publicly about how terrible the decision is, it has to be read: one is ethically obligated to know what the decision was and what the law is supporting it before offering criticism. None of those fuming over the case had read the decision, and neither had my friend. They just listened to MSNOW and read indignant protests by race-hustlers like Barack Obama. They are exactly like George Costanza in a memorable “Seinfeld” episode where he is too lazy to read “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” for his book club so he watches the movie instead. That George! What a lazy idiot. How could he think the movie would be an accurate version of the book?
I asked everyone on the thread whether they had bothered to read what they were condemning and being “heartsick” about. Crickets.
Ethics Alarms 
My high school English teacher and good friend suggested that there are two things you do not opine about if you have not read them: Papal Edicts and Supreme Court decisions.
-Jut
Isn’t it great when we can become our teachers’ friends.
The Supreme Court did not strike down any article in the Voting Rights act as unconstitutional. That is remarkable as the race-based gerrymandering is often justified as required by the Voting Rights Act. My question is whether in 2026 parts of the Voting Rights Act have not become a relic of the past. Jim Crow officially ended 62 years ago with the Civil Right Act and the Voting Rights Act. The South today is not the same as the South sixty years ago, as generations have passed and many people have moved in from other states.
As for the people who do not read the arguments of the Supreme Court, not many people do that as that is all considered dense legalese; most of them do not read the fine print of important contracts they sign. Instead they do what all other people do, and follow the lead provided by politicians of their own party, and the mainstream media.
My impression is that a lot of the anger on the left is performative. The left is angry that Republican states cannot be forced to gerrymander their states on race based terms that benefit the Democrats. We would not have this discussion if African Americans did not vote overwhelmingly Democrat.
Most SCOTUS opinions are clear, erudite, and definitely not in “legalese.” Some are even entertaining. The Act has indeed become outdated and, as I noted, the Court has more than once stated that Congress needs to fix it. The Act was very much tailored to conditions of the time—60 years ago!—and pretending those apply now is nonsense.
Most SCOTUS opinions are clear, erudite, and definitely not in “legalese.”
Jack, we both know that as we are from a reading tradition; we are old school. Some Ivy League students need remedial course in reading. People do not read anymore. They watch screens. They also have not been taught critical thinking as the public schools tells them what to think.
And it is much easier to turn on the TV or follow social media to hear it from demagogues like Hakeem Jeffries.
This reminds me of a former “friend.” She posted how much of a fan of RGB she was (as an English professor, non-lawyer). I asked her which decision she liked the most, and I got accused of asking a gotcha question.
To be fair, I knew what I was doing, but I was also genuinely curious about it. People tend to go silent or accuse you of being the instigator and forgetting they were the original posters.
She obviously had no idea what she was really talking about it. It was that weird trend where all these feminists who knew little to nothing about RGB claimed her as a hero.