https://truthout.org/articles/black-disenfranchisement-has-not-been-this-intense-since-jim-crow/
Black Disenfranchisement Has Not Been This Intense Since Jim Crow
The federal government is carrying forward a white nationalist backlash to the mass uprisings that took place in 2020.
by Austin C. McCoy
May 8, 2026
Truthout
Voters check in before casting their ballots on the first day of early voting at the Louisiana State Archives on May 2, 2026, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Tyler Kaufman / Getty Images
The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Louisiana’s congressional map creating two Black-majority districts continues to remind us of how much the U.S. has backpedaled away from the so-called racial “reckoning” of the summer of 2020. The Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais undermines another key plank of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, passed more than 60 years ago with the intent of protecting Black Americans’ voting rights and political representation.
With SCOTUS ruling majority-minority districts as a form of discrimination against non-Black people, Republican-led states are poised to dilute Black political power in a manner echoing the Jim Crow era when white southerners retook power from elected Black lawmakers and neutralized Black Americans’ voting rights for multiple generations. During Reconstruction, hundreds of African Americans won elected office as thousands of newly emancipated citizens engaged in the electoral process. The number of Black officeholders declined following Reconstruction’s end in 1877, when federal troops were withdrawn from the South. White supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan launched terror campaigns against Black communities in efforts to blunt Black political power. Many whites also justified their attempts at undermining Black power by claiming African Americans were corrupt and thus not fit to participate in self-governance.
White theft of African Americans’ civil rights and economic power accompanied the destruction of Black political influence following the end of Reconstruction. White southerners moved to pass laws instituting segregation in education, public accommodations, and in the private sector. Jim Crow laws also entailed enforcing policies preventing Black Americans from voting, such as poll taxes and literacy tests.
One difference between the racial dictatorship of Jim Crow and the burgeoning racial regime is the contemporary manifestation of oppression is grounded in what sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls “colorblind racism,” or non-racialized actions and policies that reinforce Black and Brown marginalization. In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, justified invalidating Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder by pointing to the “great strides” in Black participation in electoral politics. Justice Samuel Alito echoed Roberts in his opinion for Louisiana v. Callais: “First, vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, which have made great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination.”
However, eliminating minority-majority districts threatens to leave millions of Black Americans without representation that reflects their interests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed off on a new congressional map which could award up to four more GOP seats. Tennessee Republicans have drafted a new map that would eliminate the only predominantly-Democrat, and predominantly-Black, district. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey’s call for state Republicans to revisit Alabama’s map is striking because she is framing her actions as an attempt to remain in compliance with the law. Again, this ruling allows Republicans in states to disenfranchise Black voters under the guise of following “colorblind” law.
SCOTUS’s decision is the latest in a series of rollbacks in civil rights not seen since the post-Reconstruction era. Since Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has sought to eliminate any policy associated with addressing historical instances of racism. The administration’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies has led to historic job losses for Black women. According to economist Katica Roy, more than 319,000 Black women lost their jobs in three months in 2025.
Many red states, especially in the South, continue to wage a war against Black history, especially the aspects of it that challenge myths of colorblindness and white innocence and victimhood. After complaining about how anti-racist activists have tried to “erase” history by tearing down Confederate monuments during his first presidency, Trump’s federal government continues its efforts to whitewash history, from its unsuccessful attempt to remove mentions of George Washington enslaving Black people at Independence Hall in Pennsylvania to reinstating names of military bases named after Confederate generals. This follows the ongoing assault that Republicans and higher education administrators in Florida, Texas, and Alabama have waged against DEI programs in education and the teaching of African American Studies, race, and gender studies. These attacks on anti-racism descend from the “Lost Cause” myth that emerged amid Reconstruction, which erased slavery as a cause of the Civil War and instead emphasized how the Confederate South fought valiantly to defend “state’s rights.”
Diluting the Voting Rights Act, attacking Black history and employment, challenging birthright citizenship legalized in the 14th Amendment — another pillar of Reconstruction policy — and eliminating immigration from “less desirable” countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are all part of this administration’s strategy to maintain the United States as a white nationalist country. The “Great Replacement” theory animates these attacks as many Americans believe that people of color threaten to overrun the U.S. and replace and oppress white Americans.
Like white reactionaries in the South attacking Black Americans’ freedoms and white northerners’ defense of segregation after the Civil War, this administration’s efforts to curb Black political and economic power and immigration are a backlash to the global racial justice uprisings in response to Breonna Taylor’s and George Floyd’s murders by police in 2020. The 2020 protests represented everything that many white nationalists feared — a multiracial, multinational, and working-class movement against police violence, racism, colonialism, and capitalism. It seemed that a new political majority seeking a long overdue reckoning with the histories of racism and settler colonialism was on the cusp of formation amid the rebellion.
The backlash to the anti-racist conflagration emerged soon after the summer of 2020. Believing that anti-racist education projects like the 1619 Project lay at the foundation of the rebellion, Trump tried to undermine it with the “1776 Project,” which asserted a whitewashed and American exceptionalist interpretation of U.S. history. Attacks on critical race theory and DEI efforts followed and continued after Trump left office, as right-wing activists like Christopher Rufo waged a culture war against anti-racism. Democrats like then-Rep. and now-Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and President Joe Biden criticized calls to defund the police. Biden called for funding law enforcement, further undermining one of the main demands of 2020 demonstrators.
Resistance to this racist regime may start in a manner similar to Black Americans resisting Jim Crow and structural racism in the North during the 20th century civil rights movement and the organizing that laid the foundation for the 2020 protests — local people resisting “colorblind” racism and organizing protests and movements against the structures of white supremacy. Minnesotans have demonstrated the power of collective solidarity and community defense while resisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection’s attempts to round up immigrants. And, as Jonathan Stegall and Anne Kosseff-Jones wrote in January for Truthout, Minneapolis’s anti-ICE resistance would not have transpired without the city’s 2020 racial justice uprising.
Collective political education is once again relevant as state legislatures and the federal government have sought to ban Black history, ethnic studies, gender studies, and other disciplines critical of settler colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism. Political education programs such as Study and Struggle and efforts such as the hundreds of Black churches creating history programs to educate their communities are great examples of critical education capable of countering right-wing propaganda about race and racism, gender, war, immigration, and capitalism. Studying how power operates, organizing tactics and strategies, and histories of resistance also prepares us for confronting and defeating authoritarianism.
The only path to stopping this regime from completely disenfranchising everyone but its most privileged adherents is to make good on the longstanding calls by Black activists like W. E. B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis, and groups like the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and the Black Workers Congress to transform U.S. society. We also learned from the range of abolitionist organizations and formations in the Twin Cities fighting against state violence like Black Visions, Reclaim the Block, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, and the recent collective opposition to ICE that we cannot reform ourselves out of structural racism. The structure of white power that can rear its monstrous head in response to racial justice movements must be destroyed and a new, more just and equal system must be built in its place.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Austin C. McCoy
Austin McCoy is a scholar of African American history, labor, social movements, and popular culture. He is also the author of Living in a D.A.I.S.Y. Age: The Music, Culture, and World De La Soul Made. Follow him on Bluesky.
April 29, 2026
The Nation
The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate Louisiana’s congressional map creating two Black-majority districts continues to remind us of how much the U.S. has backpedaled away from the so-called racial “reckoning” of the summer of 2020. The Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais undermines another key plank of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, passed more than 60 years ago with the intent of protecting Black Americans’ voting rights and political representation.
With SCOTUS ruling majority-minority districts as a form of discrimination against non-Black people, Republican-led states are poised to dilute Black political power in a manner echoing the Jim Crow era when white southerners retook power from elected Black lawmakers and neutralized Black Americans’ voting rights for multiple generations. During Reconstruction, hundreds of African Americans won elected office as thousands of newly emancipated citizens engaged in the electoral process. The number of Black officeholders declined following Reconstruction’s end in 1877, when federal troops were withdrawn from the South. White supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan launched terror campaigns against Black communities in efforts to blunt Black political power. Many whites also justified their attempts at undermining Black power by claiming African Americans were corrupt and thus not fit to participate in self-governance.
White theft of African Americans’ civil rights and economic power accompanied the destruction of Black political influence following the end of Reconstruction. White southerners moved to pass laws instituting segregation in education, public accommodations, and in the private sector. Jim Crow laws also entailed enforcing policies preventing Black Americans from voting, such as poll taxes and literacy tests.
One difference between the racial dictatorship of Jim Crow and the burgeoning racial regime is the contemporary manifestation of oppression is grounded in what sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva calls “colorblind racism,” or non-racialized actions and policies that reinforce Black and Brown marginalization. In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, justified invalidating Section 4b of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder by pointing to the “great strides” in Black participation in electoral politics. Justice Samuel Alito echoed Roberts in his opinion for Louisiana v. Callais: “First, vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the South, which have made great strides in ending entrenched racial discrimination.”
However, eliminating minority-majority districts threatens to leave millions of Black Americans without representation that reflects their interests. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed off on a new congressional map which could award up to four more GOP seats. Tennessee Republicans have drafted a new map that would eliminate the only predominantly-Democrat, and predominantly-Black, district. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey’s call for state Republicans to revisit Alabama’s map is striking because she is framing her actions as an attempt to remain in compliance with the law. Again, this ruling allows Republicans in states to disenfranchise Black voters under the guise of following “colorblind” law.
SCOTUS’s decision is the latest in a series of rollbacks in civil rights not seen since the post-Reconstruction era. Since Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has sought to eliminate any policy associated with addressing historical instances of racism. The administration’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies has led to historic job losses for Black women. According to economist Katica Roy, more than 319,000 Black women lost their jobs in three months in 2025.
Many red states, especially in the South, continue to wage a war against Black history, especially the aspects of it that challenge myths of colorblindness and white innocence and victimhood. After complaining about how anti-racist activists have tried to “erase” history by tearing down Confederate monuments during his first presidency, Trump’s federal government continues its efforts to whitewash history, from its unsuccessful attempt to remove mentions of George Washington enslaving Black people at Independence Hall in Pennsylvania to reinstating names of military bases named after Confederate generals. This follows the ongoing assault that Republicans and higher education administrators in Florida, Texas, and Alabama have waged against DEI programs in education and the teaching of African American Studies, race, and gender studies. These attacks on anti-racism descend from the “Lost Cause” myth that emerged amid Reconstruction, which erased slavery as a cause of the Civil War and instead emphasized how the Confederate South fought valiantly to defend “state’s rights.”
Diluting the Voting Rights Act, attacking Black history and employment, challenging birthright citizenship legalized in the 14th Amendment — another pillar of Reconstruction policy — and eliminating immigration from “less desirable” countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East are all part of this administration’s strategy to maintain the United States as a white nationalist country. The “Great Replacement” theory animates these attacks as many Americans believe that people of color threaten to overrun the U.S. and replace and oppress white Americans.
Like white reactionaries in the South attacking Black Americans’ freedoms and white northerners’ defense of segregation after the Civil War, this administration’s efforts to curb Black political and economic power and immigration are a backlash to the global racial justice uprisings in response to Breonna Taylor’s and George Floyd’s murders by police in 2020. The 2020 protests represented everything that many white nationalists feared — a multiracial, multinational, and working-class movement against police violence, racism, colonialism, and capitalism. It seemed that a new political majority seeking a long overdue reckoning with the histories of racism and settler colonialism was on the cusp of formation amid the rebellion.
The backlash to the anti-racist conflagration emerged soon after the summer of 2020. Believing that anti-racist education projects like the 1619 Project lay at the foundation of the rebellion, Trump tried to undermine it with the “1776 Project,” which asserted a whitewashed and American exceptionalist interpretation of U.S. history. Attacks on critical race theory and DEI efforts followed and continued after Trump left office, as right-wing activists like Christopher Rufo waged a culture war against anti-racism. Democrats like then-Rep. and now-Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and President Joe Biden criticized calls to defund the police. Biden called for funding law enforcement, further undermining one of the main demands of 2020 demonstrators.
Resistance to this racist regime may start in a manner similar to Black Americans resisting Jim Crow and structural racism in the North during the 20th century civil rights movement and the organizing that laid the foundation for the 2020 protests — local people resisting “colorblind” racism and organizing protests and movements against the structures of white supremacy. Minnesotans have demonstrated the power of collective solidarity and community defense while resisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection’s attempts to round up immigrants. And, as Jonathan Stegall and Anne Kosseff-Jones wrote in January for Truthout, Minneapolis’s anti-ICE resistance would not have transpired without the city’s 2020 racial justice uprising.
Collective political education is once again relevant as state legislatures and the federal government have sought to ban Black history, ethnic studies, gender studies, and other disciplines critical of settler colonialism, imperialism, and capitalism. Political education programs such as Study and Struggle and efforts such as the hundreds of Black churches creating history programs to educate their communities are great examples of critical education capable of countering right-wing propaganda about race and racism, gender, war, immigration, and capitalism. Studying how power operates, organizing tactics and strategies, and histories of resistance also prepares us for confronting and defeating authoritarianism.
The only path to stopping this regime from completely disenfranchising everyone but its most privileged adherents is to make good on the longstanding calls by Black activists like W. E. B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., Angela Davis, and groups like the League of Revolutionary Black Workers and the Black Workers Congress to transform U.S. society. We also learned from the range of abolitionist organizations and formations in the Twin Cities fighting against state violence like Black Visions, Reclaim the Block, the Minnesota Immigrant Rights Action Committee, and the recent collective opposition to ICE that we cannot reform ourselves out of structural racism. The structure of white power that can rear its monstrous head in response to racial justice movements must be destroyed and a new, more just and equal system must be built in its place.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Austin C. McCoy
Austin McCoy is a scholar of African American history, labor, social movements, and popular culture. He is also the author of Living in a D.A.I.S.Y. Age: The Music, Culture, and World De La Soul Made. Follow him on Bluesky.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/supreme-court-demolishes-voting-rights-act/
The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act
In its 6–3 decision, the court gutted the legislation that ended apartheid in this country—and once again gave white people the ability to suppress Black political power.
by Elie MystalApril 29, 2026
The Nation
Demonstrators outside the US Supreme Court Building during oral arguments for Louisiana v. Callais, Oct. 2025.(Eric Lee / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The 1965 Voting Rights Act is the most important piece of legislation in United States history. It is the law that freed this country from apartheid. Before the Voting Rights Act—despite the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Reconstruction Amendments and the various civil rights acts passed throughout history—the white majority could systematically disenfranchise Black citizens, as well as other minority groups. White folks could prevent non-white people from voting; they could make it harder for non-white people to vote; or they could simply make their votes not matter. And they could do this by means of violence, poll taxes, gerrymandering, and any other mechanism white people could dream up.
The VRA was the first piece of legislation that seriously tried to change this, to ensure every citizen the ability to participate in democratic self-government. It did this by enforcing the 15th and 19th Amendments and their prohibitions on denying the vote on account of race or gender. Remember, constitutional amendments mean nothing if there is no legislation to support them. Nobody, for instance, went to jail for having a beer in violation of the 18th Amendment’s prohibition on alcohol; instead, people went to jail for violating the Volstead Act (which attempted to enforce the 18th Amendment in the most draconian and stupid way possible). Similarly, every Black person alive in the South between 1865 and 1965 could tell you that nobody got to vote because of the 15th Amendment. Black people got to vote because of the Voting Rights Act.
To be clear, the VRA did not remove white supremacy from politics; it opened a door, and Black political power flooded into the white’s-only space of the US government. In 1964, there were only four Black people in Congress, and zero in the Senate. By 1968, that number had more than doubled to nine. Today, there are 67 Black people and 56 Latinos in Congress, the highest number for both groups in this country’s history.
The story is similar for women. In 1964, there were just 13 women in Congress; today, there are 154. (Always remember that the 19th Amendment did nothing for Black women, who have become the heart and soul of the Democratic Party, until the VRA got their back). And everybody should know that just 43 years after the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this country elected a Black president. The Voting Rights Act changed the face and the structure of American politics—and government.
Some people have never gotten over it—and six of those people sit on the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts has made it his lifelong crusade to oppose the Voting Rights Act and its democratization of political power. He opposed the expansion of the VRA when he was a young lawyer working in the Ronald Reagan White House, and he has done everything he can while on the Supreme Court to cut out the very heart of Black political power.
On Wednesday, Roberts and his cabal of ruling Republicans finally completed their quest to suppress the strength of the emerging non-white majority in this country. In Louisiana v. Callais, the court ruled, 6–3, that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used to protect minority political power from being diluted through gerrymandering. The ruling effectively ends the VRA, and with it the all too brief era of multiracial democracy in America.
Current Issue
May 2026 Issue
The nuts and bolts of the decision are fairly straightforward. Louisiana has six congressional districts, and about a third of its population is Black. Mathematically, that means Louisiana should have two majority-minority congressional districts, but its 2020 redistricting allowed for only one. The state was sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and forced to draw a map with two Black districts. It did. Then white people sued, arguing that they were somehow constitutionally entitled to congressional overrepresentation, and that the two majority-minority districts discriminated against their white-bred interests.
In Callais, the Supreme Court ruled for the white people. It holds that the Voting Rights Act cannot be used to force Louisiana to draw a second majority-minority district. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, makes two key points:
States cannot use race as a factor in districting even when those states are trying to prevent the disenfranchisement of nonwhite minorities.
The Voting Rights Act only protects against intentional discrimination.
What this means in reality is that white people can gerrymander away Black political power, just like they did in the old days, as long as they say they’re only trying to take away Democratic political power. It means that even if you can show that the gerrymander was obviously targeted to dilute the Black vote and not the “Democratic” vote (as was the case in Louisiana, where neighborhoods full of white Democrats were left untouched but neighborhoods full of Black people were chopped up) it doesn’t matter unless the white gerrymanderers say something like, “I drew this map because I hate Negroes” or some other similarly vile statement bold enough to get Alito excited. It means that the Voting Rights Act is effectively dead.
I have to say “effectively dead” because Alito spends most of his opinion arguing that it’s not. He says that the VRA “properly construed” (emphasis his, not mine) still exists, it just has to be construed exactly as Alito wants it to be and not as Congress intended it to be. Congress explicitly intended the VRA to include “disparate impact”—the idea that a law that results in racism is indeed racist whether or not the racists who wrote the law admit to their nefarious plans. Alito’s construction explicitly rejects this concept. Nobody elected Alito or the other Republicans on the court to make this decision for us, but they’ve decided that only Republicans on the Supreme Court know what racism truly is.
Alito doesn’t want to say he’s killing the VRA; he just wants to turn it into a zombie. That’s a bit of a departure for Alito and for the Republican supermajority. After all, this is the same Alito who seemed almost gleeful when directly overturning Roe v. Wade and consigning women to second-class status. In this case, he clearly wants you to think, and the media to report, that the Voting Rights Act still exists. I suppose it is more comforting to white people if they are allowed to believe that they’re not living in an apartheid state again. The white folks who are against voting rights don’t all want to feel like they’re Elon Musk.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan brings clarity to what Alito tries to hide. She writes: “I dissent. The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.’… It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality. And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court. I dissent, then, from this latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”
The phrase “now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act” is the only analysis that matters. The VRA has been demolished, as the Republicans have long intended.
American-style apartheid was not constructed in a day, and multiracial democracy will not disappear in a night. Given that all the states interested in mid-decade redistricting already have their plans well underway, it’s unclear if, and I’d say unlikely that, this ruling will have a huge impact on the upcoming midterm elections. All it’s likely to mean is that states that were already trying to dilute the Black vote will indeed be able to dilute the Black vote. Florida will be bad, but Florida was always going to be bad, and this Supreme Court was never going to stop white-boots DeSantis from being bad.
The real bite of this ruling will come in 2030, when there’s a new Census and a new round of redistricting. That’s when we’ll see red state after red state dismantle Black and Latino voting power. Louisiana had one majority-minority district. It should have two. By 2030, it will have zero.
There’s only one way out of this, and it involves people using what voting power they have to to send people to Congress committed to multiracial democracy. Congress can overrule the Supreme Court on this. It can pass a new Voting Rights Act that explicitly defines what “intentional” discrimination looks like over and above what Roberts and Alito say it does. It can outlaw vote dilution. It can require disparate-impact analysis, and it can attempt to hold the Supreme Court to Congress’s interpretation of the Constitution through the practice known as “jurisdiction stripping.” Essentially, Congress can say “our interpretation of the 15th Amendment can be enforced by this new Voting Rights Act, and our interpretation is final.”
Beyond that, if Democrats take back the House and the Senate, kill the filibuster, and elect a Democratic president in 2028, Congress can pack the court and fill it with people who do not believe in a white’s-only theory of voting rights. Those new justices could overrule not just Callais but all of the other voting rights cases the Roberts court has issued to try to destroy minority voting rights. Those new justices could overturn the court’s prior gerrymandering decisions. A new court could reject the white supremacy the Roberts court embraces.
All of that will require a lot of political will, but it can start with the midterms. Democrats simply must take control of Congress and the Senate in November. Then, they must win the presidency in ’28, and hold that control through the 2030 Census. Thanks to Callais, this may be the last opportunity for Democrats to do so, because after 2030, if Callais has not been thrown in the trash, it will be very hard for Democrats to wrest political control from Republicans for decades.
Black people have used their political power to support the Democratic Party since the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In response, the Republican Party has set out to kill the VRA and reduce Black power to that of the Jim Crow era. Republicans have succeeded. We’ve got about four years to reverse their gains, or their victory will be complete.
The Voting Rights Act is dead. We need a new one, or the racists win. It’s as simple and as depressing as that.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Elie Mystal
Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and a columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, both published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter “Elie v. U.S.” here.
VIDEO:
#GOP#Politics#Redistricting
Elie Mystal says the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais is reminiscent of the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision “in terms of the racism that the Supreme Court has ushered in.” “This is Jim Crow 2.0.”
"What's Past is Prologue..."
DEFEAT FASCISM BEFORE FASCISM DEFEATS YOU
FROM THE PANOPTICON REVIEW ARCHIVES
(Originally posted on February 29, 2024):
Thursday, February 29, 2024
THE FIX IS IN: Brilliant Lawyer, Activist, Critic, Public Intellectual, and Fearless Advocate For Justice Elie Mystal On Exactly How and Why the Truly Heinous and Criminally Rightwing Supreme Court is 100% In The Bag For the Fascist MAGA GOP Leader and Former President Donald J. Trump
https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/n-ari-mystal-240228-205139013789
The Beat with Ari
SCOTUS under fire for ‘trying to make Trump win’
The Supreme Court agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges. MSNBC’s Ari Melber is joined by former RNC Chair Michael Steele and The Nation correspondent Elie Mystal, who says SCOTUS is “trying to make Trump win.”
February 28, 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He0IU4-lo40
The
Supreme Court agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump
can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference
charges. MSNBC’s Ari Melber is joined by former RNC Chair Michael Steele
and The Nation correspondent Elie Mystal, who says SCOTUS is “trying to
make Trump win.”
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-coup-trial-delayed-as-supreme-court-agrees-to/id1314172351?i=1000647482638
Trump coup trial delayed as Supreme Court agrees to hear ‘presidential immunity’ case
The ReidOut with Joy Reid
MSNBC
February 28, 2024
Politics
MSNBC
February 28, 2024
Politics
#Trump #SCOTUS #immunity
In breaking news from the Supreme Court, the 6-3 conservative majority has decided to hear the case of Trump vs. the United States on whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over his criminal election interference charges.VIDEO:
In breaking news from the Supreme Court, the 6-3 conservative majority has decided to hear the case of Trump vs. the United States on whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over his criminal election interference charges.VIDEO:
Joy
Reid leads this episode of The ReidOut on MSNBC with breaking news from
the Supreme Court. The 6-3 conservative majority has decided to hear
the case of Trump vs. the United States on whether Donald Trump can
claim presidential immunity over his criminal election interference
charges. Plus, Mitch McConnell is stepping down as the Senate Republican
leader in November. “But the fact remains--no individual has done more
damage to the Senate than Mitch McConnell,” Joy says. Joy gives her
analysis of what she calls McConnell’s "shameful legacy." All this and
more in this edition of The ReidOut on MSNBC.
Posted by Kofi Natambu at 1:49 AM
Labels: 2024 Presidential election, Ari Melber, Elie Mystal, GOP. MAGA, Joy Reid, Michael Steele, MSNBC,Rightwing Judges, The Beat, The Reidout, The Supreme Court
Posted by Kofi Natambu at 1:49 AM
Labels: 2024 Presidential election, Ari Melber, Elie Mystal, GOP. MAGA, Joy Reid, Michael Steele, MSNBC,Rightwing Judges, The Beat, The Reidout, The Supreme Court
