Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Strange Justifications of “Race-Based” Policies

The left is ecstatic about what they heard on the second day of oral arguments recently from new justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The case that was receiving much attention was the Alabama Gerrymandering lawsuit that they claimed involved racial discrimination in the voting process, and, therefore violated the Voting Rights Act.

The map that was redrawn had one majority Black district, out of seven districts, despite the fact that Black voters make up 27 percent of all state's voter population. It was the Court of Appeals ordered the redrawing of the map, which would likely help the Democrats. However, the Supreme Court took the case and stayed the order until the case was decided.

In court Tuesday, Edmund LaCour, Alabama’s solicitor general, argued that the map was “race-neutral,” and that the order for a new map would put the state at odds with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution because it would have to prioritize race in redistricting.

Justice Jackson's response was alarming in that it followed along with the extreme liberal's “Equity” take, which Biden and Harris have embraced. Kamala Harris recently said the quiet part out loud on the news, talking about the hurricane Ian and “giving resources based on equity.”

Then, Jackson said she didn't think that the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection means that you can't consider race. She said that she did not believe it was intended to make it “race-neutral or race-blind.”

“I don’t think we can assume that just because race is taken into account that that necessarily creates an equal protection problem,” Jackson said.

She said the framers themselves adopted the Equal Protection Clause “in a race-conscious way.”

“The entire point of the amendment was to secure rights of the freed former slaves,” Jackson said.

Jackson, the court’s newest justice and first Black woman ever to sit on its bench, then cited the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “which specifically stated that Black citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens.”

“I don’t think that the historical record establishes that the founders believed that race neutrality or race blindness was required,” she said. “That’s the point of that act, to make sure that the other citizens, the Black citizens, would have the same [rights] as the white citizens.”

So, it would seem that It's acceptable to think about race as a way to force results leftists prefer or to keep the political power. It's not “Equal Protection” as the Constitution was intended. It's not “equality under the law” or “equality without discrimination” but explicit decisions based on race.

That in and of itself is racist. This could result in an absolute fracturing of United States into real fragmentation due to race. Every person has the same voting rights, and nobody wants to stop that. Democrats are trying to slash districts to benefit their political agenda That is what this issue is all about.

Calling it “progressive originalism” is absurd.

Jackson also made reference to the things that she believed the “Framers” making the 14th Amendment were thinking about. Now, that suggests she has no idea what she is talking about, in addition to pushing radical nonsense, since the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868; the term “Framers” refers to the writers of the Constitution/delegates to the Constitutional convention.

It's possible that Jackson is likely to be defeated in this instance by the originalists in the Court. It's also an indication of the radical nature of her views and how her decision will probably negatively impact the Court.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Kari Lake Takes Apart “Unhinged” Katie Hobbs, Schools Her on Handling the Press

Democrats are in Disarray as the Narrative About Their “Comeback” Fails