In an extraordinary twist of political irony, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—hardly known for helping conservative causes—has inadvertently rescued the very group that left-wing media tried to torch last week. When POLITICO published a hit piece targeting Young Republicans over supposedly “racist” group chat messages, the goal was clear: discredit, destroy, and decimate. The media storm was designed to paint these private messages as the modern-day equivalent of a digital cross burning. But almost overnight, the Left’s narrative began to unravel—and it was Jackson who, in a stunning move of unintentional interference, helped blow a hole in the whole strategy.
Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings
"They don't have equal access to the voting system. They're disabled." pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025
This wasn’t a moment of conscious clarity on her part. Her comments weren’t delivered in defense of anyone on the Right. They weren’t designed to deconstruct POLITICO’s latest smear. In fact, they weren’t even coherent legal reasoning. But what Jackson managed to do, during oral arguments in one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases of our generation, was say something so jarring, so breathtakingly tone-deaf, that she overshadowed the very controversy the media had been manufacturing.
“They’re disabled,” Jackson said, referring to black voters—drawing a legal parallel between racial disparities in voting access and the Americans with Disabilities Act. And with that one phrase, any rational observer would have to admit: the chat messages POLITICO was clutching its pearls over suddenly looked tame by comparison.
NEW: The Supreme Court signaled they are on the verge of weakening or completely dismantling the Voting Rights Act, according to multiple reports.
MSNBC’s Mark Stern: “It sounded like a majority of the justices are leaning toward embracing some form of that argument, which… pic.twitter.com/JK3J6ll0Tq
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 15, 2025
But the bigger story, the one Jackson didn’t intend to amplify, is the case itself. It’s a direct challenge to the modern application of the Voting Rights Act—a law that once had a noble goal but has since metastasized into a legal weapon wielded almost exclusively by Democrats. As interpreted today, the Act allows courts to mandate racially engineered voting districts, even when there’s no evidence of intent to discriminate. The result? Gerrymandered maps built not around shared geography or political representation, but skin color.
🚨Just in: CNN is now panicking that Democrats would lose up to 19 seats if the Supreme Court strikes down the Voting Rights Act pic.twitter.com/xmpXkaTpuX
— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) October 14, 2025
Take Louisiana. In 2022, its legislature drew a map with six congressional districts—one of which had a black majority. No evidence of racism, no discriminatory intent, just typical political cartography. But the courts intervened anyway. Why? Because one black-majority district wasn’t “enough.” So a new district was created—one that stretches awkwardly across the entire state, uniting voters with no commonality other than race. This map is not about representation; it’s about preserving political power for Democrats.
Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “Even white Republicans or white Democrats won't vote for black candidates.”
Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan: “Right, but if these were white Democrats, there's no reason to think they would have a second district. None!”
“So… pic.twitter.com/NOdMM6vexU
— RedWave Press (@RedWave_Press) October 15, 2025
That’s what this case is about. And based on the Supreme Court’s tone during oral arguments, that system may finally collapse. If the Court rules that the Voting Rights Act, as currently applied, violates the Constitution, the political consequences will be seismic. Democrats could lose up to 19 House seats—seats they’ve long held thanks to judicially enforced racial gerrymandering. That would tilt the balance of power in Washington for a generation.