Justice Jackson, James Carville & Machiavelli

Letter to Romans: Did Justice Jackson’s “utterly irresponsible” solo dissent in that VRA decision barring race-based gerrymandering unintentionally expose the Democrats’ conspiracy to rig the mid-terms, then, stack the Court in its favor? Short answer: Yes, sort of.

George Washington Law Prof Jonathan Turley suggested as much in a Fox News op ed titled, “Justice Jackson just showed why Democrats are desperate to pack the Supreme Court.” The Professor’s take on Justice Jackson’s Machiavellian dissent, in which she called her majority colleagues “unprincipled,” was in fact the pot calling the kettle black. Literally. Jackson betrayed being upset, not just because the past (mis)use of the Voting Rights Act to justify gerrymandering to pit black vs white communities was held to be unconstitutional, but because the majority had refused to delay issuing that latest ruling until the mid-terms had taken place in Louisiana … get this … even though the congressionally rigged voting map was now UNCONSTITUTIONAL. As Prof Turley concluded: “There [was] no reason why the decision should not [have been] finalized except for a blatantly partisan effort to protect Democrats from losing seats in the midterm elections. After all, if these districts are unconstitutional, why shouldn’t states guarantee that voters are given representatives chosen free of racially discriminatory preferences?”

Good question. One that is reverberating across the nation as other states are rushing to decide whether their own current voting maps aren’t unconstitutionally rigged. And, further to the point made by numerous Democrats,’ including James Carville and his School of Machiavellian Politics: “If the Democrats win the presidency & both houses of Congress … they should … expand the Supreme Court to 13.” Any wonder Justice Alito called Justice Jackson’s dissent “utterly irresponsible”?

Davd Soul