On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority approved a ratified South Carolina congressional map that a lower court said was “whitewashing” Black voters, potentially helping party members Future Republicans easily draw legislative maps along racial lines. Writing for a six-member majority, Samuel Alito—who has come under scrutiny this week after revelations that he displayed extremist pro-Trump symbols outside his home in Virginia And New shirt— ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the authorization was racial rather than partisan in nature, which was permissible. “There are no facts upon which the District Court relied to infer racial motive,” Alito Written“sufficient to support an inference that overcomes the presumption of legislative good faith.”
It was an outrageous decision—one that seemed designed, like Elena Kagan wrote in a fiery protest, to “address future instances of fraud” and make it easier for states to effectively disenfranchise Black voters. “What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial profiling,” Kagan wrote. “Those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends…And sometimes they may want to outright suppress the electoral influence of minority voters….Let’s continues, this Court tells the states today.”
But no matter how bad the ruling itself was, the concurring opinion of Clarence Thomas even worse. The conservative caught up in the scandal not only agreed with Alito that the plaintiffs — and the lower court that ruled in their favor — were wrong; he argued that the high court “has no power to decide these types of claims in the first place,” because “drawing political districts is the job of politicians, not of judges federal”. To support his argument, Thomas, the second Black American to sit on the high court, took aim at the court’s landmark 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Of course, that unanimous decision found school segregation unconstitutional, but to Thomas, it was a serious violation of the law, with the court having “boundless views on the measures equitable remedy”.
“It is time for the Court to return these political issues to where they belong – the political branches,” Thomas concluded, asking the court to follow its “one person, one vote” rulings ” stipulates that voting by all citizens in a state must be equal.
It is difficult to understate how extreme this argument is. Thomas—has long been a critic Brown, which was argued by Thurgood Marshall, the man he replaced on the bench — would seem to give states virtually unlimited power to dilute the voting rights of Black voters, as long as they do not explicitly decline their vote. EQUAL Ari Berman put it Thursday night, Thomas “really wants to abolish the 20th century.”
Thomas’ attack on Brown comes a week after the 70th anniversary of the ruling—and as racial segregation in America’s public schools climbing back to levels not seen since the Civil Rights era, thanks in part to Republican measures weakening the landmark decision. Alito did not go as far as Thomas during most of his career Alexander fifth opinion. But conservatives again make it clear that, when it comes to John Roberts Court, there is no such thing as settled law.
