Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Gonna LOSE IT When She Sees What Alito Wrote...

Added: 2026-05-07

[00:00:00]The gerrymandered racial districts have now been struck down by the Supreme Court. That was last week. And now for the last several days, state after state after state have looked at their options to redraw their lines. And Louisiana, sort of the centerpiece of this argument that was made before the Supreme Court.

[00:00:18]They have a decision to make right now.

[00:00:20]And the Supreme Court, they helped that decision along.

[00:00:27]And we'll get back to that story in just a sec. But first, scammers are stealing billions of dollars from America's seniors, and they're ramping up their efforts. With calls, texts, or clicks, they can steal a senior's entire life savings. But we have the power to stop these criminals. AP is fighting for bipartisan common sense solutions to protect older Americans hard-earned money from scammers. Join us today, will you? Visit action.arp.org/fraudpledge.

[00:00:56]This is paid for by AAP. And now back to the story. We're going to show you what they did. But first, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanch, was asked about this on Meet the Press this weekend. And he sort of framed it properly. Go ahead, Mr. Blanch.

[00:01:09]>> There is no doubt that the Supreme Court got this decision right. It's the position of the Department of Justice.

[00:01:14]It's the position of this administration. We argued the case. And so, yes, there is there is also no doubt that the existing system was not consistent with our Constitution. And that's what the Supreme Court found. And there's going to be a lot of criticism, I expect, even in the coming moments on this show about that decision. But the reality is what people cannot say is that is that the the provision that was struck down by the Supreme Court is consistent with our Constitution and that's the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution.

[00:01:43]>> That's right. Uh beginning, middle, and end. I know that a lot of uh people who want the court to be activists and write the law aren't used to the fact that their sole responsibility is to interpret the constitution and to make sure that laws fit within the confines of the constitutional rights that you have uh god-given rights protected by the constitution and most importantly the scope of what the government can and cannot do when they infringe on those rights and that's what this decision is all about. Uh, in fact, uh, the Supreme Court actually reiterated and reasserted their decision yesterday by directing Louisiana immediately to start redrawing these maps. They've got three days to respond. Now, oftentimes a Supreme Court decision comes down and there's a 30-day window, but you see, time is of the essence here. If states move forward with unconstitutional congressional districts for this upcoming election when they have the time and the means to remedy the unconstitutional districts, then well, they're violating the Constitution.

[00:02:47]if they have undoubtedly congressional districts that have drawn specifically to determine a a minority majority district so that you have districts drawn specifically to accommodate the color of voters skins then they are violating the constitution and they need to fix it and they need to fix it now.

[00:03:09]So, Justice Alo gave the decision. The descent was written by um Katanji Brown Jackson. Perhaps you're familiar with her. She's the one who doesn't know one way or the other uh how to define a woman. That's weird. Uh some details in Justice Alo's decision will be uh coming forward in a moment. I want to read some of it to you because well, he's uh doesn't have any more Fs to give when it comes to interacting with Joe Biden's pick for the Supreme Court. It's amazing. But first, here's how Fox described this emergency order from the Supreme Court, telling Louisiana, "Get to it. Let's start drawing these new congressional lines." Democrats are decrying the Supreme Court ruling today against a black majority district in Louisiana that rolls back a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. We get details tonight from Fox News chief legal correspondent, anchor of Fox News Sunday, Shannon Breen.

[00:04:07]>> Certainly, the precedent of this decision will impact other states. As redistricting fights across the country aim to reshape the midterm playing field, the Supreme Court has issued a decision that could send states scrambling to redraw maps in a move seen favorable to Republicans and one that has the potential to impact somewhere in the neighborhood of roughly 20 current congressional districts. By the way, uh before we let the president talk here, I just want to jump in and remind everybody, you know, all of this outcry, all of the screaming about how the Supreme Court has made this decision and it's going to favor Republicans is going to f, you know, two things to bear in mind here as we discuss this. Number one, take a look at New England. They've already gerrymandered all of their districts and gerrymandered Republicans out of existence in states where Trump won, you know, 45% of the vote, but there's not one Republican in the House representing anyone from New Hampshire or from uh Massachusetts or Connecticut or any of these other states or Maine. Maine has one Republican senator, but they don't have any member of the House that's a Republican. All right, that that's item number one. Stand by.

[00:05:25]Thank you for that. Uh, that's number one. But number two, California just did this. California had a referendum. California had new maps.

[00:05:36]California redrrew their maps favoring Democrats. Right? You just heard the language there, but these maps favor Republicans. So, everyone's screaming about it. Okay. California just redrrew their maps, screwed Republicans out of their congressional districts. I think five seats altogether and it was challenged and this exact same Supreme Court upheld the California maps. They wouldn't even hear the arguments. They said, "No, it there's nothing wrong with this. They can do this." And everyone just moved on.

[00:06:10]You didn't have Republicans marching in the streets screaming and calling Democrats names. You didn't see them screaming for the Supreme Court to be packed and for the building to be burned down and everybody called racist fascist. No, IT'S THE EXACT SAME SUPREME COURT and it's the exact same issue except California didn't draw their district lines based on the color of people's skin. These states, they did because they had a misinterpretation of section two of the Voting Rights Act.

[00:06:41]Supreme Court has fixed that now. And if you continue with these districts, you're violating the Constitution in a very racist way. I'll have you know, so Crimea River, when it comes to you saying that the Supreme Court is illegitimate or something because of this decision, because that same illegitimate Supreme Court just upheld the California districts. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Let's go back to the report here. President Trump chime in.

[00:07:03]>> Somewhere in the neighborhood of roughly 20 current congressional districts, >> which you considered a win for Republicans.

[00:07:09]>> I love it. The 63 opinion finds Louisiana aired in drawing a second predominantly black district, which it had done in response to earlier litigation challenging its map at the time. Justice Alto writing for the majority, quote, "No compelling interest justified the state's use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander and its use would violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights." Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch going beyond the majority's ruling. Quote, I would go further and hold that section two of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districtricting at all. The dissenters, justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson warned they fear section two is essentially quote a dead letter.

[00:07:57]Following today's decision, the consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. If other states follow Louisiana's lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

[00:08:12]>> I think what the Supreme Court is saying is it doesn't matter. Right. I just again only be I know we talked about this story last week when the decision came down, but because it's relevant to this reaction and everything that's going on here and the fact that the Supreme Court now has issued an order for Louisiana to do it. I just want to I just want to revisit that language. If other states follow Louisiana's lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

[00:08:39]That's just complete bull crap. It makes no sense. Of course, they have the opportunity to elect. They have the they have the exact same opportunity to elect candidates of their choice that you have in the district that you're running in.

[00:08:53]Uh I'm sorry.

[00:08:57]I I live in a gerrymandered district in a very blue state, Maryland right now.

[00:09:02]Maryland congressional districts I believe are eight Democrat, one Republican. And I don't live in that one Republican. The district I'm in used to be represented by a Republican like 15, 20 years ago. uh it got drawn in such a way that it made it a Democrat representative say I do I have the opportunity to elect candidates of my choice. I mean only if the candidate of my choice ends up running an incredible campaign and the Democrats implode.

[00:09:31]But I have the opportunity to elect them and and it has nothing to do with the color of my skin. And in fact, this is again as old as congressional districts when they were first originated in this country in this constitution.

[00:09:47]This is how it's supposed to be.

[00:09:52]We have two major political parties in this country. and Justice Kagan, with all due respect, in every single one of those congressional districts, 435 of our congressional districts, one of the two parties will not be able to elect the candidate of their choice because they will lose the election. And it doesn't matter what color their skin is, nor should it matter what color their skin is. But you're trying to carve out a special right here. Well, minority citizens will no longer have the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Well, that means they're the same as people who aren't in the minority.

[00:10:28]You would have it so that minority citizens, as you describe them, which is Orwellian, will in some way have some special extra opportunity that they're the only ones that can elect candidates of their choice. The rest of us can go pound sand. It's just it's absolutely outside of any understanding of the constitution or civil rights or constitutional rights or equal rights that any of us could dare to comprehend.

[00:10:56]But if you're on the political left in this country, that's like that's really intellectual thought. That that's so smart. Okay. Can you show me in the Constitution where minority citizens have some better right, stronger right, a mandate from the Constitution to be able to pick somebody of their own color or what have you. And once again, I want to remind everyone that there are multiple congressional districts that are majority white that have black congressmen.

[00:11:29]So, what are we trying to achieve here other than stacking the deck for Democrats? And that's what they're pissed off about, that they had these little blue islands in the middle of what should be dominant red states.

[00:11:43]States that voted overwhelmingly Republican in the presidential and elections and in Senate campaigns time and time again for the last 30 years, more so than those New England states that are solid blue. But they had these little blue islands in the middle of those states and they were drawn specifically to accommodate black voters and then they brainwashed the black voters to constantly vote Democrat without question. It's been a protection scam for the Congressional Black Caucus and for certain Democrats to be able to stack the deck and the game is up. It's not rigged anymore. Sorry, Elena. I think what the Supreme Court is saying is it doesn't matter what communities are actively harmed uh so long as you can't prove intent.

[00:12:36]>> It's unclear whether some legislators will now be able if they want to redraw their maps in time to affect the midterms since primary voting has already started in many states.

[00:12:47]>> Well, and that's the crux of the matter.

[00:12:48]But in Louisiana, primary voting had not started and that's why the justices determined that they need to get going on this. By the way, on AOCC's message there um about proving intent and ensuring that uh you know if people are harmed by the districts and all that.

[00:13:07]Let me just be clear on this again. I live in Maryland. This is a blue state. uh Governor Ali that it used to be it was 8-2 for a while there.

[00:13:19]There was another congressional district, the sixth district of Maryland. It was long time represented by Republicans when Martin Ali had the opportunity in 2010 to I believe it was 2010 to redraw those congressional districts. He specifically redrrew the map to include parts of Montgomery County, which is right near DC, so that enough Democrat voters could flip that seat Democrat. And it worked. It worked.

[00:13:44]They've had a Democrat representative ever since Martin Ali redrrew that map.

[00:13:48]It was challenged in a court of law in the state of Maryland. It went all the way to the Supreme Court under oath under deposition. The governor admitted, "Yeah, we redrew this map to get rid of the Republicans so we could have another Democrat." And it held that was legal. That is constitutional.

[00:14:14]So shut up everybody. We all have to live under these conditions. You may not like it and if you don't like it, amend the constitution. Okay?

[00:14:25]You've had special rights and special privileges outside of the constitution by a bad interpretation of the voting rights act that has allowed you to have representation in kind. And when I say you, I mean Democrats.

[00:14:41]How you have been allowed to have a special extra 20 plus seat cushion every two years in the House of Representatives that you didn't deserve if those states had to play by every rule every other state has to play by.

[00:14:54]So, welcome to the party. No more special privilege.

[00:14:59]Sucks to be you.

[00:15:02]Justice Alto, you can tell I have no more Fs to give. And neither did Justice Alo when he wrote this statement yesterday. He specifically addressed the disscent the dissent that was written by Katanji Brown Jackson that was rife with vitriol and attacks on the majority suggesting that they had nefarious motives and political motives. The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. And so he answered them. The descent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional. This disscent does not claim that it is now too late for the state legislature or the district court to adopt a new map that complies with the constitution. Nor does the descent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dcent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best and the other is baseless and insulting.

[00:15:52]The first is compliance with the 32-day default rule set out in this court's rule 45.3. But as the court's order explains, there is good reason to depart from the default rule here. The principal reason for the 32-day default rule is to give a losing party time to prepare a petition for rehearing. But here, the Robinson appellies have not expressed an intent to file such a petition, much less set out any ground on which a petition might be based, and the need for prompt action by this court is clear. The date scheduled for the beginning of early voting in the primary election has already passed. The congressional district map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional and the general election will be held in just 6 months.

[00:16:30]The second reason offered by the descent is that we should allow the 32day period to run out in order to quote avoid the appearance of partiality. But the disscent does not explain why its insistence on unthinking compliance with rule 45.3's default rule does not create the appearance of partiality by running out the clock on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map. In other words, it's the disscent. In other words, Katanji Brown Jackson who is actually being impartial uh not showing impartiality. She's the one by by asking this clock to, you know, run out the clock here so that it can't take effect so that the elections can move forward to help the Democrats. She's the one displaying that she lacks impartiality, not those who are trying to uphold the Constitution. She specifically wants an unconstitutional process to go forward for no reason other than one can only presume to help her party of choice.

[00:17:33]The descent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power. Quoting and just like that those principles give way to power. What do you mean and just like that? What is she doing narrating Sex in the City?

[00:17:47]What kind of child is this?

[00:17:50]That is groundless and utterly irresponsible charge. What principle has the court violated? The principle that rule 45.3's 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is a good reason to do so. The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan. The descent accuses the court of unshackling itself from constraints.

[00:18:09]It is the descent's rhetoric that lacks restraint.

[00:18:13]Yeah. Samuel Alo is done with her. Boy, it's going to be great to watch next session. Meanwhile, you want to talk about unshackled and unhinged. Democrats have no arguments to make here. They cannot on the Constitution make any case for keeping their racist congressional districts. And so, when you've run out of ideas and arguments and intellect, what do you do? Well, no ideas, no intellect. Ah, Ilhan Omar, let's see what she says. Congress can change the number of justices on the court at any time and has done so seven times throughout our history. Since 1989, the last time the court was expanded, the US population has grown by over 800%.

[00:19:04]>> In other words, pack the court. Their solution is blow up the Supreme Court.

[00:19:11]This is the party of norms. This is the party of this is not normal.

[00:19:16]We should expand the court and load it with our people. And and my suggestion to Donald Trump, if he wants to do the funniest thing, he should come out tomorrow and say, "You know what? That Ilhan Omar, she's right. She's right.

[00:19:28]Our population has expanded 800% since the last time we expanded the Supreme Court. And it's high time we did it."

[00:19:34]So, I am hereby expanding the Supreme Court by seven more seats. and I will now nominate the new justices, all seven of them.

[00:19:45]He should do that right now. That would be amazing.

[00:19:49]Meanwhile, over on CNN, they had a really, really high-minded, intellectual, responsible conversation about all of this, as they always do.

[00:19:57]>> I know the three justices who dissented in this opinion believe that the sky is falling. The six and the majority, however, as I understand it, believe that it was a decision narrowly tailored to this district in question. And I think any honest broker, we showed it up on the screen. If you looked at that district and did not know the political leanings of it or the racial demographics of it and saw it snaking from Baton Rouge up to Shreveport, you would say gerrymandered. It is the very definition on paper of a gerrymandered district. But I would take a step back because you you keep using the word represented and I think this is really really critical and key as many become further entrenched in identity and ideology first mindsets. We seem to believe that we are only represented when somebody has the same attributes as us. Whether that be race or gender or physical attributes or ideological leanings >> or somebody who cares about your community because they live there. No, but the the goal of redistricting is to maintain communities of interest to respect existing boundaries. Yeah, that is by the law. This is happening because Donald Trump Donald Trump demanded Texas riot a year and a half ago. This is happening because Donald Trump single Republican in New England, >> not one Republican in New England represents anyone in the US House of Representatives.

[00:21:25]>> Wow. The senator from Maine is going to be shocked to learn that John because I have been needs to be told.

[00:21:30]>> I have been she's in the Senate. I said house.

[00:21:33]>> Yeah. And by the way, the fact that Susan Collins can be elected statewide in Maine is proof positive that it's ridiculous. The way Maine is drawn right now because if you can win statewide as a Republican, but not one person can win in a congressional district as a Republican, it tells you they drew the line specifically to get Democrats elected at the expense of Republicans.

[00:21:55]John Flugal saying who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. When you're confronted with an argument and your only response is but Donald Trump did this thing, you know you've lost the argument.

[00:22:07]And the whole point of what was said there is the crux of it all. You don't represent me because your skin color is the same as mine. Trust me, I have a a a very white congressman right now, and I would take a a any black Republican in the House of Representatives right now in exchange for them. I have much more in common with them than I have with my current representative. Number one.

[00:22:33]Number two, when Flugal saying, "Yeah, you should elect somebody who cares about your community." This coming from the party that just redrrew the Virginia maps so that Fairfax County all the way up here in the state is now stretched all the way down to the Shannondoa Valley and the rural areas. So this guy is represented by a person 300 miles away. Spare me. And one last thing, you watch this show, so you already know the truth, but I'll just give it to you in case you have an argument with your liberal son-in-law at dinner this weekend. And keep it nice. He did marry your daughter, so you got to, you know, be respectful, I suppose, as long as they're respectful to you. Donald Trump did not start this. Oh, but Texas drew their lines in the middle of a decade.

[00:23:11]We never do that. Well, no, actually, they drew those lines in 2020.

[00:23:15]The Biden Justice Department blocked them and sued them and stopped them and the entire thing was suspended until it was resolved. And it didn't get resolved until this year. And so, they're going back. Sorry that it took that long, but it was Biden and Merrick Garland and that administration in 2021 that blocked Texas from drawing the maps exactly as they are drawn today. And when they finally dropped that case and they could finally move forward with their maps, they went forward with their maps. That's not Donald Trump demanding that it be done.

[00:23:54]That's not Republicans starting it.

[00:23:58]If anyone started it, it was the Biden administration.

[00:24:03]And now you know.