Why the SCOTUS Ruling on the 'Voting Rights Act' is a Total Game-Changer!

Added: 2026-05-05

[00:00:00]the uh Federalist editor-inchief and the author of Alto, Molly Hemingway. Molly, how are you?

[00:00:06]>> It's great to be here with you. I'm doing great.

[00:00:09]>> Yeah, great, great, great to have you.

[00:00:11]Um, boy, what what perfect timing uh to have you on and to have your new book out uh with what happened yesterday. You want to give us a quick look at what Alto said in his decision and the meaning behind the court decision yesterday? Yeah, the Supreme Court has had to deal with all sorts of cases that are very frustrating for them, dealing with conflicting lower court opinions about how to enact the Voting Rights Act. Now, we know that the Constitution forbids racism and so you're not allowed to draw racially based, you know, districts in your in your maps, but we also had a bunch of federal courts saying you had to be racist in your drawing of districts. And so there was a mess that needed to be settled. Alto wrote this masterful major opinion saying that the constitution forbids racism. The Voting Rights Act is not was not written and could not be written to oppose what the Constitution says. And so section two, which some people had interpreted as requiring racist maps, that's clearly not the meaning that the that the legislators who did the Voting Rights Act intended and the racism is ended. Now, the reason why this is interesting is because Democrats have exploited these federal rulings to create these very racial maps that have given them an undue advantage in certain states. And so ruling these congressional districts as unconstitutional and contrary to the Voting Rights Act itself means that they're all going to be going away. And you saw states, you know, just yesterday saying, "Okay, we're going to get back into session so we can draw non-racist maps."

[00:01:57]>> Help me out on gerrymandering. I mean, I know this is, you know, comes from one of our founders. Um, and they were doing this right at the very beginning. I just think it is the worst.

[00:02:08]It's the worst idea of the republic and of the from the founding era. It's not part of our documents, but um it was what Eldridge uh Gary that that actually yeah that did this.

[00:02:23]>> Um what was the thinking back then and why can't we stop this? I mean, I think it, you know, I think it was Jefferson and Adams went back and forth and said we should have based it like on the Bible where it's stakes where you have a hundred people and when it gets over a hundred then you divide that equally in half and you just keep making it into blocks. Um, and it's the way to keep everybody, you know, keep your politicians in that block. They're not some some, you know, somebody that's from, you know, on a thin snake like line across the state. They're in your neighborhood. They're in your area. Why?

[00:03:00]Why is this still happening? Why can't we get rid of this? First, let me tell you about real estate agents I trust.

[00:03:06]Let me tell you a little secret about real estate. The housing market doesn't care how you feel. It doesn't care that you think your house is worth a certain number because you love the kitchen. It doesn't care that you saw the house three streets over selling for something crazy last spring. And it definitely doesn't care that you need a certain price to make your next move work. The market responds to timing. It responds to inventory, interest rates, local demand, which is why you need somebody who actually understands these things to help you. Real estate agents I trust is a network of experienced, vetted professionals who know your market inside and out. They know how to price strategically. They know how to negotiate. Most importantly, they know how to tell you the truth even when it's not the easiest thing to hear. Go to real estate agents.com.

[00:03:54]We vet every single one of these people to make sure they're the right person to help you sell or buy a house in this market. Real estate agents I trust.com.

[00:04:04]>> Well, you know the yesterday's ruling deals only with racial gerrymandering.

[00:04:10]That means you can still gerrymander.

[00:04:12]And I agree with you, Glenn. I think it's very bad for the republic. It's bad because it also divides, you know, John Tilman is this guy who lives in Chicago and he had this point about how when you create these gerrymandered districts that are overwhelmingly one particular interest group, it it means that the pe the other people who are in that group, who are in that congressional district or a city or county district, they're not getting good representation. I think it's very radical, very radical. But my idea is that we should just absolutely greatly expand the House of Representatives. The real problem is we don't really have any representation at all. Very hard to have a member of the House who is even close to representing his constituency because it's gotten so big. So I'd like to see almost like a Thunderdome House of Representatives where every 10,000 people or so gets their own representative. And it would be messy, but I think you would have more representative government. The House is completely broken. So is the Senate. Part of that is that they're so detached from the people they're supposed to represent.

[00:05:17]>> Well, but gerrymandering actually is a reason for that. I just did a monologue in hour number one on why this is actually good because it um this this ruling for for blacks or anybody who is taken for granted. When you create a district where you know how it's going to vote, the politician doesn't have to work for your vote anymore, you know, so nobody listens to you. You wonder why who's representing me? Why how can they go 80% the population is 80% for, you know, uh, ID, voter ID, and yet neither party wants to pass this. Who are they representing? Well, they're not representing you because Republicans know they can always count on your vote.

[00:05:59]Democrats know they can always count on the black vote. All they have to do is say a few things. You know, Orin Hatch said to me one time, and I was so disgusted by it. I I I just I it was said everything I needed to to know. It was about 2009.

[00:06:14]Tea Party had just started and I'm sitting at a table uh with a bunch of politicians and Orin Hatch is sitting there and he said, "Ah, you don't have to worry about these these people."

[00:06:25]Meaning the Tea Party. you don't have to worry about these people. All I have to do is get up and I'm going to propose a flag burning amendment and they'll all be back on my side. And it was like, oh my gosh, I I need a bucket to vomit in.

[00:06:38]It was disgusting. But that's the difference between being managed and being represented.

[00:06:44]>> Well, I think you're exactly right. And you saw it yesterday. Democrats said, "If we're not allowed to be racist, it's going to hurt our power." And I understand that being racist in the drawing of maps has helped Democrats, but I don't think it's an unalloyed bad for Democrats or good for Republicans that these racist maps won't be allowed to stand because of what you just said.

[00:07:05]If you aren't allowed to divide people into these super safe districts based on race, you'll have people who have to represent their whole constituency. And I think you will see more competitive seats and more competitive seats is actually you know a good thing. Right now it's like very few switch one way or the other >> and also that's how you get radical representatives. I mean look at the people that are representing people in the country or their district. You know I understand it from San Francisco. I don't understand it from 70% of our representatives. They're radicals because they can play that because it's been gerrymandered so much. You don't have to play to the normal person. You play to the fringes >> and it makes it very hard to work across party lines. Uh it just it causes a lot of problems. I mean, some of those radicals are my favorite people.

[00:08:04]>> Um so, let's talk about uh the book Alto that you just finished. You spent a lot of time with him. Um, let let me start with a a broad question. I and I'm just a casual I'm not like you. I'm a c more of a casual observer of, you know, the Supreme Court and watching what they're doing. Um, but my impression is, Molly, that this is the fairest Supreme Court we've had in my lifetime. Not that they agree with me on everything. They don't, but it seems as though they're trying to get it right. And they make mistakes. They get, you know, they go one way or another. But this does not seem like a radical Supreme Court. Unless, you know, you're looking for the progressive Supreme Court that will just, you know, you know, interpret the law any way they want and forget about the Constitution.

[00:08:58]>> Yeah. I think that's why you're >> Is that a fair Go ahead.

[00:09:01]>> I I agree. And the left has been freaking out about this court because for decades they controlled the Supreme Court. It wasn't like other, you know, it wasn't like the presidency which went back and forth. They just had complete control and they had embraced this idea of rule of men. You know, you had people like Justice Brennan saying that he thinks that what he feels about the current moment is what's important, not what the Constitution meant at its founding. Right? You have this major movement take place where people say this is just madness. They're just legislating from the bench. And for the first time in our country's history, we have a majority of justices who say that they want to adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution at the time it was framed. And they're doing really good good work, logical, reasonable work to have a coherent philosophy.

[00:09:52]>> Make a case for the Democrat that's listening that actually they are fair.

[00:09:58]They've they've done some things that are good for you.

[00:10:02]>> Well, you can even look at the you know, a lot of my book deals with the overturning of Roie Wade and a lot of people on the left were very upset about that because they they love abortion or they love this idea that abortion was hidden. You know, Roie Wade said abortion is was hidden in the constitution by the founders. It's in between a couple of words, right? Nobody actually believes that, but they did like that it that it gave broad right to abortion. And when Justice Alo wrote the opinion that overturned that, the media and other left-wing groups definitely freaked out about it. But it was actually a very modest opinion that returns power to the >> It didn't say abortion is now forbidden or unborn children have a right to life.

[00:10:50]That's in the 14th amendment. It said the people get to decide what their abortion policy is. You might not like that you have to do that work of debating and and hashing things out at your state or federal legislature, but it's a very modest opinion. And even here, this idea that you cannot be racist, that's in the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was was passed precisely so that states would not be racist when it came to election law. Now, you might say, "But I like this form of racism because it helps the Democrat party."

[00:11:23]But I think we all know deep down that racism is bad and that it's forbidden by the Constitution and that a piece of legislation could not overturn what the Constitution says.

[00:11:33]>> Thank you for thinking for yourself and being part of a movement because that's really what all of this is. If you want the full story, you want to go deeper, go to blazev.com/glenn.

[00:11:44]Go there right now. Sign up. No interruptions, just the truth, uncensored and unfiltered. Don't just watch, take a stand. And I'll see you over there in a minute.