Friday, May 8, 2026

IMPORTANT NEW BOOKS:

Backtalker: An American Memoir
by
 
Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw 
Simon & Schuster, 2026

[Publication date: May 5, 2026]
 
 Backtalker bookcover
One of the most influential public intellectuals in the world and the architect of the two biggest ideas to reshape the American conversation about fairness offers the intimate story of how her life gave birth to these ideas.

It is not very often that someone comes along and permanently reshapes the way Americans think about two of the most important issues of the day. In this case: race and gender. But that is what Kimberlé Crenshaw did when she articulated two concepts that would forever change national and global debates about equality: intersectionality and critical race theory.

Backtalker is the powerful and intimate story of how a little girl from Canton, Ohio, came up with a new way to look at the world. Crenshaw’s memoir traces the way her lived experience made her see things others didn’t as the daughter of a strong-minded teacher and a pathbreaking public servant, and as the sister of a protective, yet bullying older brother. She starts to talk back, and that backtalking has continued throughout her life. It happens when she is denied a role in the kindergarten school play. When she is escorted to the back door of a private club. When Anita Hill is exiled for testifying against Clarence Thomas. When OJ Simpson goes on trial. When Obama launches My Brother’s Keeper, a movement focused on boys of color only. When the movement against police violence overlooks Black women. Crenshaw is there for all of it.

In the vein of Ta-Nehisi Coates and Bryan Stevenson, Crenshaw evokes each time and place like a gifted novelist with extreme honesty and specificity, making her book a series of awe-inspiring, deep revelations. As a result of her work, Crenshaw has become a force to be reckoned with across America—at schools, in the workplace, at dinner tables, and, of course, in our public square.



REVIEWS:

"Backtalker charts Crenshaw’s extraordinary journey from precocious child to renowned public intellectual. . . . A rousing call to see the story of the future as one in which ‘the spirit of freedom was nurtured by talking back.’” -- Colin Grant ― The New York Times

"[Crenshaw] frames her life and her remarkably influential career as one long fight against various forms of exclusion and unfairness. . . . The reasonable conclusions of a clear-eyed intellectual who simply refused to shut up about what she witnessed and experienced." -- Kelefa Sanneh ― The New Yorker

“A beautifully written, compelling and insightful memoir from the extraordinary intellectual, activist and scholar who has shaped critical discourse in America. A moving and powerful read.”—Bryan Stevenson

“A searing, defiant and deeply inspiring memoir for our times from one of America's greatest architects of justice.”—V (formerly Eve Ensler)

“It is rare that creators of movements that shake the world use the memoir form to honestly and precisely explore how their will to change was created. Kimberle Crenshaw has made a fleshy piece of theory, a foundational book for this nation, a moving memoir that will continue to build on the monumental work Crenshaw has already done. We will thankfully be feeling the work of this book for generations.”—Kiese Laymon

“Kimberlé Crenshaw is one of America’s most original legal thinkers, a pioneering theorist whose scholarship has transformed the way we think about race, gender, and the law. Now in Backtalker, her powerful new memoir, she reminds us of the greatest teacher of all: experience. Here is a compelling account of the making not only of a visionary mind on the front lines of change, but of the ‘we’ that binds us to one another in families, communities, and in the nation as a whole.”—Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor, Harvard University

“Her ideas have shaped generations of thinkers and activists globally. Now, with Backtalker, we come to understand the people and contexts that have given shape to Kimberlé Crenshaw, her values and her sensibilities. This in-depth self-portrait reveals a woman of great depth, courage, and conviction—a truth teller and justice seeker. It is a tale as unique and compelling as its author, a much needed story for our times and beyond.”—Farah Jasmine Griffin


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Kimberlé W. Crenshaw is a pioneering scholar and writer on civil rights, Black feminist legal theory, race, racism, and the law. She was a founder and has been a leader in the intellectual movement called Critical Race Theory and is also known for introducing and developing the concept of intersectionality. She is a Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California, Los Angeles, the Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, and the cofounder and Executive Director of the African American Policy Forum. Crenshaw writes regularly for The New Republic, The Nation, and Ms., hosts the podcast Intersectionality Matters!, and has appeared as a commentator on media outlets including MSNBC and NPR.

Without Precedent: How Chief Justice Roberts and His Accomplices Rewrote the Constitution and Dismantled Our Rights
 
by Lisa Graves
Bold Type Books, 2025


[Publication date: September 30, 2025]
 
In the last twenty years the US Supreme Court has radically curtailed voting rights, undermined anti-corruption measures, encouraged extreme political gerrymandering, restricted the regulation of guns, and obliterated the constitutional right to control one’s reproductive choices. This transformation was orchestrated by a billionaire-backed reactionary political movement, whose interests Chief Justice John Roberts has been all too willing to serve.

Without Precedent explodes the falsehood that Roberts is a fair-minded institutionalist who works to blunt the worst impulses of other Republican appointees to the court when, in fact, he has led the rightward transformation of the court’s jurisprudence while presiding over the most corrupt and corrupted Supreme Court in American history.

Informed by Lisa Graves’s experience working on judicial issues for all three branches of the federal government, and based on years of intensive research, Without Precedent not only exposes Roberts as the reactionary politician in robes he has always been but delivers a vigorous plan of judicial reform designed to overcome the divisive, discriminatory, destructive, and anti-democratic machinations of the Roberts court.
 

REVIEWS:

“A brilliant explanation of how conservative big money and a long-term strategy changed American politics, and a detailed account of the way political conservatives, inside and outside government, have shaped the Supreme Court and other federal courts since 1991.”―Los Angeles Review of Books

“Graves writes clearly and with a clear sense of outrage at what the Supreme Court has become under Roberts’s stewardship.”―Times Literary Supplement

“A well-researched, cogently analyzed, and eye-opening chronicle of Roberts and his seemingly compromised Supreme Court.”―Booklist (starred)

“A captivating cri de coeur from an up-close spectator to U.S. democracy’s downward spiral.”―Publishers Weekly (starred)

“A vigorous takedown of the chief justice of the United States.”―Kirkus

“Lisa Graves is a dazzlingly brilliant sleuth of the dark-money apparatus that has corrupted the Supreme Court. Graves’ Without Precedent reveals how Chief Justice Roberts and the other right-wing justices mangled the Constitution in service to a group of shadowy billionaire extremists.”―Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator, Rhode Island

“A devastating, passionate takedown of Chief Justice John Roberts's Supreme Court by a Washington insider, progressive activist, and eyewitness to Roberts' rise to power. As a top Democratic lawyer to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lisa Graves was 'in the room where it happened,' for many of the most hard-fought battles over America's highest court. Now she tells the inside story. Anyone concerned about justice in America should read it.”―Jane Mayer, author of Dark Money, Chief Washington Correspondent, The New Yorker Magazine

“No one combines legal expertise and peerless investigative talent like the brilliant and brave Lisa Graves, who proves beyond reasonable doubt that Justice John Roberts has acted as a political animal throughout his career. An eye-popping can’t-put-it-down account, Without Precedent is a must-read for everyone who knows something has gone terribly wrong with the U.S. Supreme Court yet doesn’t understand why. I had to remind myself to breathe while reading this tour de force about the near ruin of our country that Roberts and his Federalist Society supermajority have wrought.”―Nancy MacLean, author of Democracy in Chains


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:


Lisa Graves is one of the nation’s foremost experts on the right-wing influence on the US Supreme Court and other levers of power. She leads True North Research and co-hosts Legal AF. She has served as a senior advisor in all three branches of the federal government, including as chief counsel for nominations for the Senate Judiciary Committee for Senator Patrick Leahy. She resides in Superior, Wisconsin.


Language as Liberation: Reflections on the American Canon
by Toni Morrison
Knopf, 2026


[Publication date: ‎February 3, 2026]

Nobel laureate and Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Beloved Toni Morrison investigates Black characters in the American literary canon and the way they shaped the nation’s collective unconscious.

In a dazzling series of lectures from her tenure as a professor at Princeton University, Toni Morrison interrogates America’s most famous works and authors, drawing a direct line from the Black bodies that built the nation to the Black characters that many of the country’s canonical white writers imagined in their work. Morrison sees these fictions as a form of creation and projection, arguing that they helped manufacture American racial identity—these “Africanist” presences are “the shadow that makes light possible,” as Morrison writes, and the reflections of their authors’ own deepest fears, insecurities, and longings.

With profound erudition and wit, Morrison breaks wide open the American conception of race with energetic, enlivening readings of the nation’s canon, revealing that our liberation from these diminishing notions comes through language. “How,” Morrison wonders, “could one speak of profit, of economy, of labor, or progress, of suffragism, or Christianity, of the frontier, of the formation of new states, the acquisition of new lands . . . of practically anything a new nation concerns itself with—without having as a referent, at the heart of the discourse or defining its edges, the presence of Africans and/or their descendants?”

To read these lectures, collected here for the first time, is to encounter Morrison, not just the writer but also the teacher, in the most penetrating and subversive way yet. With a foreword by her son Ford Morrison and an introduction by her Princeton comparative literature colleague Claudia Brodsky, Language as Liberation is a revelatory collection that promises to redefine the American canon.

REVIEWS:
 
“There is intellectual pleasure to be had in Morrison’s exacting, appreciative readings of Twain, Willa Cather and Gertrude Stein. . . . The effect of . . . Language as Liberation is to bring her from dull, sanctified solitude into the busy fold of canonized American writers, whose difficult books demand to be plumbed and debated and compared, and, most of all, to be reread."—Wall Street Journal

“We’ve long known the late Toni Morrison as a Nobel Prize-winning novelist and an astute cultural critic. Here we engage her as a scholar in a collection of Princeton University lectures enriched by marginalia, a beguiling testament to a prodigious mind in motion. American literature has been shaped by streams of influences from an array of continents and peoples, a ‘chaos’ of imagery and rhythms as vibrant and volatile as the nation itself. Taking stock of works from writers like Herman Melville, William Faulkner, and Gertrude Stein, Morrison probes the ‘powerful presence of Africanist personae, discourse, and narrative’ within our emerging canon.”—TIME Magazine

“Provides unprecedented insight into Morrison’s roles as cultural critic and thought leader. . . . Morrison inverts our understanding of classic American literature. . . . An insightful invitation to revisit the familiar with new eyes.”—Booklist

“Deeply insightful investigations of major works.”—Kirkus
 
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 
TONI MORRISON is the author of eleven novels and three essay collections. From 1989 to 2006, Morrison was the Robert F. Goheen Professor in the Humanities at Princeton University. She received the National Book Critics Circle Award, the Pulitzer Prize, and in 1993 the Nobel Prize in Literature. She died in 2019.
 
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Image of Blacks in Western Art
 
Studies in American Africanism is an investigation into two principal areas of discursive practice: one area involves the ways in which a non-­white, Africanist presence and persona was constructed in the United States; the second area involves the ways in which that fabricated “presence” served the literary imagination in its exploration of American identity.

The course uses the terms “Africanism” and “Africanist” to suggest the mythic construct of a denotative and connotative blackness, and an entire range of views, assumptions, readings, and mis-­readings of African peoples and their descendants in this country. Africanism is also the process of alienizing and exoticizing one’s own experience of Black people in order to know and therefore own that experience. [caveat] The course is not limited to an investigation of what might be called racist or non-­racist literature. Nor does the course take or encourage a position that confines itself to measuring the quality of a work based on the attitudes of the author, or the representations he or she makes of another racial or ethnic group. Such judgments can and are being made in recent literary criticisms. (For example, the critical scholarship of Ezra Pound, [Louis-­Ferdinand] Céline, George Jean Nathan, Paul de Man, etc.; and we know books are constantly being banned from library shelves for these alleged attitudes or representations or sensibilities regardless of past evaluations of the quality of the text. In fact, the argument has been advanced that, in the case of Paul de Man, say, or Mark Twain, the work can have no unmitigated quality precisely because the work—­or in some cases not the work but the author—­has been found to reveal insensitivity to ethnic, religious, sexual, or racial groups.)

However, although those judgments are within the reach of this course, they are not within its purview. One of the reasons the course does not close with analyses leading toward conclusions about a work’s being racist or non-­racist is that such an analysis can be an intellectual cul-­de-­sac—­once the evidence is in, there is nothing more to be said about the work.

What we propose to do is a series of close readings of traditional American fiction in order to discover what impact notions of racial hierarchy, racial exclusion, and racial vulnerability and availability have had on the literature. We will describe and analyze how this literature has behaved in its encounter with racial ideology and discover in what ways the literature has been shaped by that encounter.

Now in order to do this we will have to identify the instances during which American literature has been complicit in the development of racialism, and when it has intervened in racial discourse to undermine or explode it; but we will want to move beyond stark identification to the further investigation of what Africanism has meant for the work/product of the writer’s imagination. How does literary utterance arrange itself when it tries to imagine an Africanistic “other”? What does the encounter with Africans and/or African-­Americans do to and for the work? How does one describe the rhetorical struggle that follows? Our study averts the gaze from the racialized object to the racialized subject; from the described and imagined to the describers and imaginers.

If Africanism is a construct, if “blackness” has “meaning,” then so does “whiteness.” One goal, then, becomes to discover how the concept of “whiteness” was built/invented/produced and what it is for. The insights we come up with may help us to discover not only the nature—­even the cause of “whiteness”—­but also the part that its development played in the evolution of something known, loosely, as an American. Reading and critiquing American literature from this point of view may also release the literature from the incoherence that the studied indifference and historical evasion in criticism has imposed on it. In other words, we will regard the literary engagements with Africanism as self-­reflexive—­as ways to talk about, imagine, and set forth/assert the deep concerns white writers have about themselves and the world they inhabit. Further, we will regard the presence of Africanism in a work as an impinging force in the execution of that work’s structure and figurative language.

The suspicion of the course is that the intrusion or inclusion of Africanistic characters is significant. That the writer’s choice to include or the necessity of inclusion can be shown sometimes to throttle the text, destabilize it, and, far more frequently than one would think, it can be shown to liberate it, to provide and force astonishing kinds of artistic creativity, astonishing leaps into otherwise forbidden territory, and that in the wake of this imaginative encounter, some interesting patterns emerge—­patterns that should be included in the history of American literature as part of its distinguishing features.

Two points require underscoring (one about knowledge and imagination, the other about language):

1) Although we will see that “knowing” the “other”—­the conviction that one “knows” Africans and African-­Americans—­is central to the construction of “whiteness” (knowing is, after all, the demonstration of power), we should not ever assume that the Africans and African-­Americans encountered in this fiction are in fact known—­they are imagined. Sartre’s description of colonialist language captures the point: “These phrases (terminology for the suborned natives) were never the translation of a real, concrete thought; they were not even the object of thought . . . they have not by themselves any meaning, at least in so far as they claim to express knowledge about the colonialized.” So we will not be looking for “real” or realistic representations of blacks within a construct based on stereotypes. (“Representation is how we make our will known.”) In the absence of race-­neutral knowledge, or open-­minded inquiry about Africans and African-­Americans, and in the presence of ideological and imperialistic rationales for oppression, an invented, fictive Africanist persona emerged, and flourished because of its serviceability. Political serviceability, of course, and economic serviceability, etc.; but it is the literary serviceability that we will focus on.

The Matter of Africanism, by which I mean the fabrication of an Africanistic Presence that would support, promulgate, and enhance the institution of slavery and the hierarchy of race, seems to be a dominant figuration within American literature. And it is important to remember that under the constraints of this fabrication, we can be only secondarily concerned here with the way Africans really were—­what their various cultures, laws, languages, and art forms were; nor with what African-­Americans were or are really like—­what kind of cultural, linguistic, artistic, and social forms they either preserved or created in the New World. “Real” Blacks “out of the loop.” In short, we are not concerned here, except indirectly, with all of what was available for these writers to see and interpret, but rather with what they believed they saw, or wished to see, and how in fact they did interpret a black “other” in their midst.

We will try to discover how the variables of racism—­biologic, economic, ideological, metaphoric, metaphysical—­can be understood in each of these formulations to be insistently self-­referential for both the racist and the non-­racist alike.

Because our route takes us repeatedly to and through economical, ideological, iconographical, and figurative racism, the order of the readings is not based on a work’s date of publication or progressive literary periods. I don’t want linear or chronological time to suggest a conventional “progress” in these matters. Or lead us to believe that because the language and iconography of Africanism has altered, that its force is weakened in the literature.

Roughly put, we will treat the content of sample literature like the results of a Rorschach test, the meditation on a black spot that appears in any of an unlimited variety of shapes, and hazard some speculations about what that meditation reveals about the viewer, and how he or she translates these meditations into art. Writers produce meaning in their work—­and we want to note how. In some instances the act of imagining blacks produces language and images reinforced by received, unquestioned, culturally informed perceptions—­perceptions, biases, and evaluations already established as “knowledge” and distributed as such. In other instances the presence of Africans and/or African-­Americans alters the work—­forces it away from its announced and/or hidden course and yields fresh insights that are at odds with racial cliché. In all instances, the act of imagining Africanist personae tells its own story, a story often at variance with the responses it intended to call forth.

2)The second point to be stressed is that although the language used to accommodate this Africanist persona may be overt or encoded, covert and self-­reinforcing, it is also powerfully revealing. The close readings we do will decode this language. I will come back to this point about how language can sabotage or negotiate content. But first I want to put our study into historical context.

When we look at the beginnings of American literature we should remember that nineteenth-­century writers were mindful of the presence of blacks; they had personal and political responses to the “problem” inherent in the contradiction of a free republic resting on and committed to a slave population. The alertness to this slave population did not confine itself to personal encounters with blacks or not. Nor to their familiarity with the publishing boom that slave narratives fed. The press, the political campaigns, the policy platforms of various parties and elected governments are rife with the slave/free discourse. It would have been an isolated individual indeed who was unaware of one of the single, if not the single, most explosive of issues in the nation. How could one speak of profit, of economy, of labor, of progress, of suffragism, of Christianity, of the frontier, of the formation of new states, the acquisition of new lands, of education, of transportation—­freight and passengers—­neighborhoods, quarters, the military—­of practically anything a new nation concerns itself with—­without having as a referent, at the heart of the discourse or defining its edges, the presence of Africans and/or their descendants? It was not possible. What did happen, frequently, was an effort to talk about these things with a vocabulary designed to disguise and displace the subject. It was not always successful, and in the work of many writers disguise was never intended. But the consequence was a master narrative (or a term I like better—­white discourse) that spoke for the African and/or his descendants, and of him. Whatever popularity slave narratives had, a slave’s own narrative did not destroy the master narrative, for the master narrative could accommodate many shifts, several adjustments to keep itself intact. Enforced silence from the object was needed and a kind of tacit-­manipulative silence of the subject as well.
 
Some of the silences were broken, of course, and some maintained by authors who lived with and within the narrative. What we are interested in here are the strategies for maintaining the silence and those for breaking it. The thesis of the course is that our founding writers engaged, imagined, employed, and created an Africanistic presence and persona in several ways, and that more recent literature has followed in their footsteps.
 
In the Hour of Chaos: Art and Activism with Public Enemy's Chuck D
by Chuck D 
University of California Press, 2026

[Publication date: ‎ February 10, 2026]

A profound meditation on hip hop’s transformative power, In the Hour of Chaos takes us deep into the mind of the genre’s most unabashed revolutionary.

This book is not an autobiography. It’s not a manifesto. It’s a razor-sharp investigation into hip hop and rap music by searing lyricist and global music icon Chuck D of Public Enemy.

Engaging with some of the world’s leading thinkers on hip hop, “Professor Chuck” sets out on a journey that celebrates fifty years of hip hop and charts paths forward for its future. Exploring the intersections of hip hop with Black radicalism and feminism, media and technology, and globalization and politics, this curated collection shows the power of culture and the arts not only to bring people together but to bring about political change in this current hour of chaos.

Features conversations with leading thinkers, including Robin D. G. Kelley, H. Samy Alim, Jeff Chang, Davey D, Scot Brown, Cheryl L. Keyes, Gaye Theresa Johnson, Bryonn Bain, Maya Jupiter, Adam Bradley, Joan Morgan, and more.
 

REVIEWS:


"[Chuck D is] neither snootily professorial nor just an OG unspooling war stories. Rather, he’s a thoughtful interlocutor . . . . a valuable chronicle of the genre’s role in troubled times―and how the times have always been troubled. Smart and chatty hip-hop history." ― Kirkus Reviews



“Anyone even slightly familiar with the work of P.E. will know that Chuck D is a gifted lyricist, capable of boiling down very real experiences into lines that have the greatest impact―an attribute he shares with the likes of Dylan, Guthrie, and Marley. So, it’s not at all surprising that his book packs a genuine punch. The man can write.” ― Music Connection

"The book presents a razor-sharp investigation into hip hop and rap music from the searing lyricist and global music icon, engaging with some of the world's leading thinkers on the genre. 'Professor Chuck' sets out on a journey that celebrates fifty years of hip hop and charts paths forward for its future." ― That Eric Alper

"Public Enemy fans and rap aficionados who want to delve into Chuck D’s contention that hip hop was the ‘Black CNN,’ or learn how ‘Fight the Power’ sprang from the Isley Brothers, or examine the Black Panthers' influence on the group’s public persona, will be rewarded." ― California Magazine

"The Public Enemy frontman has always been one of rap music’s most articulate advocates, but in 2022 he shifted career from MC to university lecturer. . . . [In] In The Hour of Chaos, Chuck D talks about the cultural politics of hip hop and what it means for the future." ― The Quietus 

From the Back Cover:
 
"Chuck D is a stone-cold genius in every sense of the word. In the Hour of Chaos is an integration of the significance of the culture by someone who was inside the music in conversation with a range of brilliant thinkers. It is a breakthrough in hip hop studies, in Black studies, in music studies, and across the humanities."—Robin D. G. Kelley, author of Freedom Dreams

"Chuck D doesn’t just talk about the importance of culture but teaches us the importance of making change. This book is a gift to future generations of artists, activists, and academics, and to all those who love hip hop."—Jeff Chang, author of Can’t Stop Won’t Stop

"Chuck D is the best person to lead us on this journey because it’s rare to find someone who has literally laid the foundation of the culture and grounded us through its difficult periods—massive capitalist growth, the really terrible bouts of misogyny, and regional and global shifts. We need his voice now more than ever."—Joan Morgan, author of When Chickenheads Come Home to Roost

"To have the kind of longevity Chuck D has is a testament to his artistry and his dedication to the craft, to always evolving, to being in context. This book gives us a rare window into his intellectual brilliance."—Adam Bradley, author of Book of Rhymes


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
 

Chuck D is the Grammy-winning leader of the hip hop group Public Enemy. A rapper, lyricist, producer, visual artist, and author, he was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2013. In 2022, he was the UCLA Hip Hop Initiative’s Inaugural Artist-in-Residence and currently serves on its National Advisory Board. 




Thursday, May 7, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: Outstanding and Legendary Legal Scholars, Public Intellectuals, Social Theorists, Critics, Authors, Activists, and Teachers Sherrilyn Ifill and Kimberlé Crenshaw On the Real Meaning and Profound Significance Of the Criminal and Deeply White Supremacist Demolition of the Voting Rights Act and What Desperately Needs To Happen Now In Our Collective Response To One Of the Most Dire and Destructive Constitutional and Political Crises in American History

Sherrilyn Ifill - What Happened to the Voting Rights Act? | The Daily Show



The Daily Show

May 4, 2026

VIDEO:  

#DailyShow #VotingRightsAct #Louisiana


Civil rights lawyer and founding director of Howard Law School's 14th Amendment Center for Law & Democracy, Sherrilyn Ifill, sits down with Jon Stewart to discuss the Supreme Court’s weakening of the Voting Rights Act. They talk about how the reinstatement for purposeful discrimination overturned the court’s own precedent, how the Voting Rights Act protects the voting strength of minorities and their candidates of choice, and the dangerous potential for Trump and Republicans to redistrict using this precedent in an effort to turn seats in the House.


#DailyShow
#VotingRightsAct
#Louisiana
#SupremeCourt

Under the Blacklight Ep. 49 - Confronting Callais: Backtalkers United To Fight For Democracy


African American Policy Forum

May 5, 2026
 
VIDEO:   
 

On Monday, May 4th at 3pm ET, AAPF hosted a special Under the Blacklight session and live recording of Intersectionality Matters! with thinkers and advocates who refuse to remain silent as the Second Reconstruction is dismantled. This episode arrives on the eve of the release of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s new memoir Backtalker as a reminder that when the state uses colorblind language to dilute Black power, we cannot remain silent. Polite silence is a death knell for racial justice. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, our democracy faces a structural emergency. By weaponizing colorblindness to strike down majority-Black districts, the Court's radical unraveling of the Civil Rights Movement effectively erases Black political representation under the guise of neutrality, ignoring the systemic racism the VRA was built to dismantle. In Backtalker, Crenshaw explains how CRT and intersectionality were forged specifically to confront the very logic used in the Court’s ruling: the false idea that ignoring race will somehow lead to justice. Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) President Kaye Wise Whitehead moderated the conversation with AAPF Executive Director Kimberle Crenshaw, acclaimed historian Carol Anderson, and AAPF Senior Fellow Tim Wise. As the legal ground shifts beneath us, Backtalker provides the intellectual and activist toolkit necessary to make sense of this moment and fight for a future that recognizes the society we need, grounded in our full, intersectional realities. Join us for the urgent analysis of the decision and a discussion as to why, at this moment, "backtalking" to power rather than “bending the knee” is a democratic necessity. In addition to their prescient insights, they will uplift resources from our Backtalkers United book clubs and our upcoming virtual summer school program Backtalkers Academy, as unique opportunities to access the tools and ideas needed to rebuild our institutions and democracy from the ground-up. The time for backtalkers to unite to fight is now.

Wednesday, May 6, 2026

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT MEANS THE DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY. PERIOD. FULL STOP. WAKE UP AND DEMAND FREEDOM, JUSTICE, AND EQUALITY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE (CAVEAT: IT MAY ALREADY BE TOO LATE...PASS THE WORD: DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU...

The Fight Over the Voting Rights Act IS the Fight For Democracy

NAACP General Counsel Kristen Clarke on the gratuitous gutting of Voting Rights by SCOTUS.


FIVE MINUTE NEWS

May 3, 2026

VIDEO: 

THE WEEKEND SHOW with MeidasTouch


NAACP General Counsel and former Biden Civil Rights AG Kristen Clarke joins Anthony Davis to discuss the gratuitous gutting of Voting Rights by Trump’s Supreme Court and what it means for minority representation throughout the United States - only on The Weekend Show. HomeServe: Go to ⁠https://HomeServe.com⁠ to find the plan that’s right for you and help protect your home systems. Independent media has never been more important.


Please support this channel by subscribing here:
@fiveminutenews


Five Minute News is an Evergreen Podcast, covering politics, inequality, health and climate - delivering independent, unbiased and essential news for the US and across the world.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/06/opinion/callais-voting-rights-act-discrimination.html
Opinion

John Roberts Believes in an America That Doesn’t Exist
 
An image of four sets of folded hands extending from black robes. John Roberts’s face is reflected in a screen.
Credit:  Tierney L. Cross/The New York Times
Listen · 9:29 minutes



by Jamelle Bouie
May 6, 2026
New York Times 


“Today is a triumph for freedom as huge as any victory that has ever been won on any battlefield,” President Lyndon Johnson declared as he signed the Voting Rights Act on Aug. 6, 1965. “This act flows from a clear and simple wrong,” he continued. “Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote.”

And so it did.

The Voting Rights Act put the final nail in the coffin of American apartheid and opened the door to something that looked worthy of the name democracy. It brought a flowering of political participation, not just in the states of the former Confederacy but also throughout the country, as disadvantaged and disenfranchised Americans took advantage of new rules and protections to fight for and win political power. Latinos, Native Americans and other ethnic and linguistic minorities all won greater access and influence under the act and its subsequent amendments and reauthorizations.

The change was most transformative, of course, for Black Americans, who seized on the passage of the law to win local, state and federal representation at numbers not seen since Reconstruction. In 1964, there was just a handful of Black officeholders at any level of government in the South. By 1980, hundreds of Black Americans had won local and state office.

With that said, it took a major amendment to the Voting Rights Act and a Supreme Court decision to give Black Americans the opportunity to win more than token representation in Congress. In 1982, Congress reauthorized and amended the V.R.A. to combat disparate impact in voting and electoral outcomes. Four years later, in 1986, a unanimous Supreme Court declared that the Voting Rights Act forbade voting schemes that impaired the ability of “cohesive” groups of language or minority groups to “participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice.” Following this decision, states across the country — especially in the South — used the 1990 census and redistricting to create majority-minority state legislative and congressional districts where Black voters could elevate Black lawmakers and officials to federal office. 

At the 10th anniversary of the act in 1975, there were 17 Black members of Congress, up from six in 1965. All but one of them served in the House of Representatives. At the 20th anniversary in 1985, there were still only 20 Black Americans in the House (and none in the Senate). By 1995, however, there were 43 Black Americans serving as voting members of Congress, including one senator, Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois. This, even after the Democratic Party suffered its largest congressional defeat of the postwar era. Nonetheless, it would take another 20 years before Black Americans’ share of the House approximated their overall share of the population.

With its decision in Louisiana v. Callais last week, the Republican-appointed supermajority on the Supreme Court has delivered the latest in a string of decisions — stretching back to Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 — that have weakened the Voting Rights Act’s ability to stop racial discrimination in voting and to secure fair representation in both Congress and state legislatures. Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, the conservative justices have sidelined lawmakers, invented doctrines and ignored their own rules and procedures in a relentless drive to trim the Voting Rights Act beyond all recognition.

In this case, the court gave Republican-led states in the South the tools necessary to destroy majority-minority legislative districts under the guise of partisan gerrymandering, newly blessed by the court as a legitimate aim of state lawmakers. In concurring opinions, the conservatives say that this is a blow to equal protection — a step on the path to a “colorblind Constitution” that has put an end to a “disastrous misadventure” in voting rights jurisprudence.

As a tool, the majority-minority district functions as a prophylactic — an obstacle to politicians who might want to undermine or eliminate minority representation for invidious reasons. As long as those districts exist, these communities — formed by historical circumstance and shaped both by past discrimination and present-day disadvantage — will have some representation in their state legislatures and in Congress. It is less likely that they’ll be ignored, neglected and left to fend for themselves.

Descriptive representation, as it is known, is not perfect; race alone does not guarantee that a lawmaker will act in the interest of his or her community. But the record suggests that in places where racial polarization is the norm, where the legacy of Jim Crow segregation shapes the political and social landscape, the opportunity provided by a majority-minority district can mean the difference between some representation and none at all.

For the Roberts court, however, these districts are little more than a “racial entitlement,” to borrow a phrase from Justice Antonin Scalia. In the court’s view, you may have the right to vote, but you do not have the right to representation, and certainly no right to representation that supports “racial classification” — as if the government is the reason that Black Americans see themselves as a discrete and particular community — or outweighs a state’s purported right to engage in partisan gerrymandering.

In the name of a colorblind Constitution and the equal protection of the laws, then, the Supreme Court has given the green light to a gleeful attempt to end Black political representation at the state and federal levels. And as long as there isn’t clear evidence of intentional discrimination — a standard that would have been difficult to prove at the height of Jim Crow, which rested on the same fiction of facial neutrality — it passes constitutional muster. In fact, lawmakers in Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and Mississippi are already planning special legislative sessions to apply the court’s ruling and erase the majority-minority districts in their states.

At a minimum, the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were written, passed and ratified to end the subordination of Black Americans and ensure their representation in the political community. It is perverse that this Supreme Court has used both amendments to facilitate what might become the largest reduction in Black representation at the federal and state levels since the end of Reconstruction and the “redemption” of the South. Words meant to secure the political equality of all Americans are being raised as weapons to deprive them of just that.

Here, we see the problem with conservative “colorblindness.” A constitution that doesn’t see color — a constitution that treats all classifications as one and the same in a country defined by its sordid history of racial subordination — is a constitution that cannot see group inequality. And worse, it is a constitution that reifies this inequality through its willful blindness to the plain realities of our society. Liberty for those who profit from the cruel legacies of our past, endless struggle for those crushed under their weight.

Speaking in 1883, after the Supreme Court nullified the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Frederick Douglass cried out for a court that would be as “true to the claims of humanity” as it “formerly was to the demands of slavery”: “I say again, fellow citizens, O for a Supreme Court which shall be as true, as vigilant, as active and exacting in maintaining laws enacted for the protection of human rights, as in other days was that court for the destruction of human rights!”

Nearly a century later, Justice Thurgood Marshall, rebuking colleagues who would uphold racial disadvantage in voting as long as it was done with a patina of neutrality, warned the court that “manipulating doctrines and drawing improper distinctions under the 14th and 15th Amendments, as well as under Congress’s remedial legislation enforcing those amendments, makes this court an accessory to the perpetuation of racial discrimination.”

One imagines that both Douglass and Marshall would say much the same if confronted with the handiwork of Roberts and his court.

It took more than half a century after Plessy v. Ferguson to get a court that was willing to enforce the Reconstruction amendments and use them to expand the substance of American freedom, not curtail it. For all our current setbacks, however, we live in a very different world than we did in the past. We do not need to wait a lifetime for change.

If the Supreme Court is going to act as a partisan institution — as a super-legislature whose judgments override the decisions of voters on the thin basis of ideology — then the only path worth taking is to discipline and transform the court with all the tools Congress has at its disposal under the Constitution.

Beyond court reform, Americans have to reacquaint themselves with constitutional thinking — with the idea that we, the people, make constitutional meaning. To the extent that the Supreme Court claims broad authority to say what our Constitution means, it is in large part because we have given this authority to the justices through our indifference.

It may be that the first step in truly reining in the court is to remember that the Republic — and the Constitution that brought it to life — is meant for us. It is ours to interpret and ours to transform.

 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va.   

More on the Constitution and voting rights:


Opinion | Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan
Who Will Stand Up to the Supreme Court Justices?
May 2, 2026


Opinion | The Editorial Board
The Justices Acted as Partisans in the Voting Rights Ruling
April 29, 2026


Opinion | Jill Lepore
How We the People Lost Control of Our Lives, and How We Can Get It Back
Sept. 17, 2025


Opinion | Richard L. Hasen
The U.S. Lacks What Every Democracy Needs
Jan. 16, 2024


Opinion | Richard L. Hasen
Bring On the 28th Amendment
June 29, 2020

Ashley B
 
I’ve been quiet about this ruling because honestly… I needed a minute. But the Supreme Court just made it harder to challenge maps designed to weaken Black voting power, and that affects who gets a voice for the next decade.
 
VIDEO: 



 

Tuesday, May 5, 2026

FASCIST AMERICA 2026: Wajahat Ali and Joy Reid are Two Of the Greatest and Most Important Journalists, Public Intellectuals, Political and Social analysts, Independent Media Mavens, and Utterly Fearless and Courageous TruthTellers in America today. They are also both penultimate “National Treasures” a tried and true cliché that doesn’t even begin to describe just how truly valuable and necessary they are to any honest, profound, and genuine public discourse in this country where rampant criminality pathological liars, conmen/women, thieves, tyrants, and predators thrive at the collective expense of all of us, and especially any black, brown, yellow, and indigenous people who DARE to tirelessly confront and furiously fight and defeat all vestiges of White Supremacy, Misogyny, and Xenophobia in the world and especially in the 'United Hates'…Thank you from the bottom of our (broken) hearts Waj and Joy. WE LOVE YOU…

America Continues to Coddle Weak, White Conservative Men with Joy Ann Reid!



Wajahat Ali

May 5, 2026

VIDEO: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-zVogLmgLk


#Politics #Trump #MAGA


Joy Ann Reid joins me to discuss the ridiculous double standards America has when it comes to weak, incompetent, conservative men like Donald Trump, Pete Hegseth and RFK Jr. We also discuss the self-destructive nature of both white supremacy and capitalist greed as billionaires are hijacking our institutions, media and democracy. I also find time to spill some tea and mock the worst people who deserve it


thelefthook.substack.com



#Politics #Trump #MAGA #News #BreakingNews #USA #Viral #Trending #Media #debate #uspolitics #trump #news #breakingnews #substack


 
Sam Alito is a salty little bitch, and Justice Ketanji is all of us
 
Alito can't handle the truth, but KBJ makes him face it every day
 
by Joy-Ann Reid
May 4, 2026
Joy's House
Substack


Sam Alito knows he’s wrong. He just doesn’t want anyone to say so out loud.

And so when he and his corrupt Gang of Six rushed, in unprecedented fashion, to make his “Fuck Them Blacks” ruling go into effect immediately, rather than in the 32 days it almost always takes for a Supreme Court decision to activate, he didn’t expect to be challenged. Not least by the “uppity” manifestation of the very people whose rights he’d just taken a dump on, to help John Crow live his lifelong dream of crushing the Voting Rights Act.

And because his May 4 order gets published first, he issued a pre-emptive strike, declaring at the end of his command that those pro-Republican Louisiana maps get on the books yesterday:

The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered. The dissent would require that the 2026 congressional elections in Louisiana be held under a map that has been held to be unconstitutional.* The dissent 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 dissent assert that it is not feasible for the elections to be held under such a map. Instead, the dissent offers two reasons for its proposed course of action. One is trivial at best, and the other is baseless and insulting. [Emphasis added]

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 appellees 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 districting map enacted by the legislature has been held to be unconstitutional, and the general election will be held in just six months.

The second reason offered by the dissent is that we should allow the 32-day period to run out in order to “avoid the appearance of partiality.” Post, at 3 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). But the dissent 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.

The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represent an unprincipled use of power. See post, at 4 (“And just like that, those principles give way to power”). That is a 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 good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as Partisan?

Yes, yes, Sam. Who needs that “unthinking compliance with the rules” crap when you can lock in your favored party’s control of the House and its nasty, dangerous gavels with which Congress might investigate trivialities like … say … corrupt gift-taking by members of the Supreme Court

Methinks Mr. Right Wing Flags doth protest too much! He seems to know how blatantly partisan he and his flow British Royals state dinner attendees look to the rest of us, and just as he did on his “bitch to the right wing press” tour following his Dobbs abomination condemning American women to uterine chattel status, he is scowling and pouting that anyone would dare to call him out. And call him out KBJ certainly did.

And as per usual, her dissent is one for the ages. It lands with this:

These post-Callais developments have a strong political undercurrent. Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties.2 And as always, the Court has a choice. By my count, we have granted an application to issue the judgment forthwith over a party’s objection only twice in the last 25 years. See Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, No. 21A220, 2021 WL 5931622 (Dec. 16, 2021); Order in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, No. 13A7, etc. (June 28, 2013). To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures.

But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation. [Emphasis added] The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.3

And make no mistake: That course of action does not follow from the Callais decision itself. The question whether our decision should affect the map to be used in the ongoing primaries raises a host of legal and political questions that are entirely independent of the issue in Callais. Among the legal ones, there is the Court’s previous insistence that — even at the cost of letting partisan gamesmanship corrupt our democracy, see Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684,721 (2019) (KAGAN, J., dissenting)—courts should not “ ‘risk assuming political . . . responsibility for a [partisan map-drawing] process that often produces ill will and distrust,’ ” id., at 704 (majority opinion). There is also the so-called Purcell principle, which we invoked only five months ago to chide a federal district court for “improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.” Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (per curiam) (slip op., at 2).

The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.

Good sis is a better woman than me for including the word “respectfully.”
Coming up this week:

Catch me on I’ve Had It with Jennifer and Pumps, which I’m taping Tuesday, and with THE LEFT HOOK with Wajahat Ali Tuesday at 1 p.m. for our weekly “piss off the right wing” LIVE.

And if you’d like to help us get to 500,000 Subscribers on YouTube, please click here and hit SUBSCRIBE! It’s fast and free, and do share the link with a friend or three!

And why not subscribe here on Substack as well? Here’s how to do that. My team and I appreciate your support for our independent media journey. Let’s keep fighting these bastards until we win.

With love and respect to the Queen Taraji.

And if you’d like to join us at our The Joy Reid Show live, featuring special guest Godfrey, on June 11, click here to get your tickets while they last!

Welcome to Joy's House! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Thanks for reading Welcome to Joy's House! ! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share
 

Unwarranted and unwise’: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gives conservatives justices a lashing over voting rights ruling
 
by Gerren Keith Gaynor
May 5, 2026
The Griot
Yahoo! News
TheGrio 

The Harvard Law-educated justice noted that SCOTUS has only broken its 32-day timeline to return a case only twice in the last 25 years.

“The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map,” noted Jackson.

She added, “The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power. Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent.”

Monday’s blunt dissent comes weeks after Jackson gave a rare rebuke of her colleagues during a lecture at Yale Law School. She called out the conservative majority for its unusually frequent rulings in favor of President Trump’s emergency docket requests, allowing his administration to carry out many of its policies before they are fully litigated in court — some of which she noted could be illegal.

“Are we going to allow him to do this thing, this thing that is being challenged in the interim, while we are evaluating whether or not that thing is lawful?” Jackson queried. “The only way to make that determination without having it just completely collapse into forecasting the merits is to focus on what is going to happen if he does this thing concretely in the real world, versus not.”

Tiffany Royster, Esq., associate counsel at the National Council of Negro Women, notes that Jackson’s vote in the Supreme Court is “for the most part, overwritten every time.”

“Her dissents are obviously in the minority, and just thinking about the 6-3 makeup of the court, the majority is getting to decide how these cases are decided, and they necessarily don’t share her perspective on the issues,” Royster tells theGrio. “She really does have very little formal power, the 6-3 makeup, but she’s using her voice and using her voice in a way where she’s not staying silent.”

Monday’s blunt dissent comes weeks after Jackson gave a rare rebuke of her colleagues during a lecture at Yale Law School.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is continuing to scold her conservative colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court. Following the high court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Louisiana v. Callais, nearly a week later, the conservative majority made a ruling that sets the path for the state to halt its primary election — which is already underway — to redraw its map and eliminate a second majority-Black district that the court shockingly ruled unconstitutional.

The latest SCOTUS order, issued on Monday evening, speeds up the normal 32-day timeline before the justices formally return a case to the lower court.

Justice Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the nation’s highest court and the most junior member of the bench, did not mince her words when calling out the judicial ruling and what she described as the potential for partiality in an ongoing political issue sparked by President Donald Trump.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures,” Jackson wrote in her four-page dissent. “But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

Less than 24 hours after the Supreme Court ruled on April 29 that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require Louisiana to have two majority-Black districts despite African Americans making up more than 32% of the state’s population, Governor Jeff Landry indicated that he would call an emergency to suspend the state’s primary elections already underway in order to redraw the congressional map.

The move seeks to give Republicans a political advantage, as states across the country are engaging in gerrymandering following Trump’s 2025 call for Texas to defy tradition and redraw its map to give his party at least five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. As the president faces tanking approval ratings, most notably on the economy and his signature policy issue of immigration, the gerrymandering fight is his last-ditch effort to keep control of Congress in 2027. Trump has warned that if Democrats win the majority, he will be impeached.

“The question whether our decision should affect the map to be used in the ongoing primaries raises a host of legal and political questions that are entirely independent of the issue in Callais,” writes Justice Jackson, who pointed to prior decisions by the court that Monday’s ruling seemingly defies.

“Courts should not risk assuming political . . . responsibility for a [partisan map-drawing] process that often produces ill will and distrust,” says the former U.S. District and Court of Appeals judge. “There is also the so-called Purcell principle, which we invoked only five months ago to chide a federal district court for ‘improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.'”

Supreme Court, theGrio.com

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 07: United States Supreme Court (front row L-R) Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan, (backrow L-R) Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pose for their official portrait at the East Conference Room of the Supreme Court building on October 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

At the heart of the Louisiana v. Callais issue, for voting rights and civil rights leaders, is the ability for Black voters, who make up 13% of the population and faced nearly a century of racial discrimination in voting—as well as racial violence and terror—to have equal representation under the law by being able to elect candidates of their choice. However, in Callais, the court essentially said that diluting the power of Black voters is permissible for political reasons. Any plaintiff challenging an election map under the VRA, they ruled, would have to prove that the slicing and dicing of Black or brown communities in redistricting was intentionally based on race.

Jackson, who dissented in the Louisiana case, does not call out the merits of the case in Monday’s ruling, sending the case back to the lower court, but notes the political activities around efforts to expedite its ruling to rush through a new map as problematic for the Supreme Court.

“These post-Callais developments have a strong political undercurrent. Louisiana’s hurried response to the Callais decision unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties,” said Jackson. “And as always, the Court has a choice.”