Supreme Court’s Takedown of American Democracy is Complete

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

Since the Citizens United decision of 2010, the justices have dismantled Americans' voices. The only solution is at the ballot box

Tue 12 May 2026

Posted by Corky at 12:44 PM | 36 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Writing in 1943, the historian Henry Steele Commager delivered both a stern history lesson and a warning about the United States supreme court.

The court, he said, had never been a friend to US democracy, and it never would be. For anyone committed to the advancement of majority rule, he added, judicial review "is wrong in theory and dangerous in practice".

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"But the Voting Rights Act decision is only the latest in a string of decisions in which the conservative-dominated supreme court has used its version of constitutional interpretation to wage war on constitutional democracy.

Those decisions have opened the floodgates to the corrupting influence of money in politics, removed the federal government from the business of ensuring that states do not draw legislative districts in ways that disadvantage minority voters, and given the green light to partisan gerrymandering."

more at the link

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-12 12:46 PM | Reply

#2 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 12:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What a bunch of BS.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 07:27 PM | Reply

And the Constitution is meaningless.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-05-12 08:12 PM | Reply

#4 Alas, my good friend, Ms. Laura.

#5 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 08:13 PM | Reply

Who knew Gerrymandering is what it means to Make America Great Again.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-12 08:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There may just be an misunderstanding... Make America Grope Again was prolly the real message.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-12 08:30 PM | Reply

Racially segregated districts is so on brand for Democrats.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 08:46 PM | Reply

A racially "Nirvana" electoral anticipated victory is so on brand for Republicans

#9 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 08:50 PM | Reply

Democrats want to go back to separate drinking fountains.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 09:00 PM | Reply

Republicans want to go back to this:

Today's GOP ...

#11 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:10 PM | Reply

Republicans want to go back to this:

Today's GOP ...

#12 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:11 PM | Reply

Republicans want to go back to this:

Today's GOP ...

#13 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:12 PM | Reply

Republicans want to go back to this:

Today's GOP ...

#14 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:12 PM | Reply

#2 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

It would be better if Democrats selected better candidates.

#15 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-12 09:12 PM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY A_FRIEND

You may not know given American education system, but those were Democrats.

#16 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-12 09:13 PM | Reply

#15 It would be better if Republicans didn't select racists.

But you do you, onepigironheadedbrainaut.

#17 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:14 PM | Reply

#16 You may not know given American education system, but those were future Republicans.

#18 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:14 PM | Reply

#I8. How many Democrats actually switched parties? When you Google it you will be surprised by the answer.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 09:26 PM | Reply

According to Democrats black people are too stupid to be able to acquire a photo ID.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 09:27 PM | Reply

-Republicans want to go back to this:

That would cost money to implement. Too cheap for that.

#21 | Posted by eberly at 2026-05-12 09:29 PM | Reply

According to Republicans, black people are too stupid to vote.

Thanks for highlighting that, bell boi.

#22 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:29 PM | Reply

-black people are too stupid to vote.

I think some would argue many of them were too stupid to vote for democrats.

www.aljazeera.com

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2026-05-12 09:37 PM | Reply

-black people are too stupid to vote.

Some are

a lot of white people are too stupid to vote as well.

#24 | Posted by eberly at 2026-05-12 09:38 PM | Reply

According to Republicans, Catholic nuns are too stupid to vote.

Retired nuns barred from voting in Indiana

At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana, were barred from voting in today's Indiana primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law that the supreme court upheld last week.

Thanks for highlighting that, bell boi.

#25 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:43 PM | Reply

I8. How many Democrats actually switched parties? When you Google it you will be surprised by the answer.

#19 | Posted by BellRinger at 2026-05-12 09:26 PM | Reply

I hate to be the one who educates you but here we are. Today's GOP is yesterday's Democratic party. The two parties switched allegiances around the turn of the 20th century. Just sayin.

#26 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-05-12 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

According to Republicans, Missouri citizens are too stupid to vote.

Thanks for highlighting that, bell boi.

#27 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:48 PM | Reply

That would cost money to implement. Too cheap for that.
#21 | Posted by eberly

Nah. Republicans are happy to pay extra, to punish their enemies.

Have you not seen the ICE budget? It's in the hundreds of billions.

Republicans spent several million just to send a handful of immigratnts from Venezuela to Ecuador prison.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-12 09:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

According to Democrats black people are too stupid to be able to acquire a photo ID.
#20 | Posted by BellRinger

I don't think I've heard any Democrats say that, but hopefully you have a link.

Anyway. What's your explanation for why Black people don't have photo ID.
Is it because Black people are lazy?

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-12 09:51 PM | Reply

#23 "...some would argue..."

#30 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:56 PM | Reply

#19 It wasn't their party affiliation.

It was how they voted.

Way to be clueless, bell boi.

#31 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 09:58 PM | Reply

#19 | Posted by BellRinger

'Tis amazing how those born, raised and still living in Michigan can opine on the voting habits of Southerners, the majority of whom bell boi only knows from this:

www.youtube.com</a>" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen>

Hee Haw, bell boi.

#32 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 10:05 PM | Reply

#19 "How many Democrats actually switched parties?"

Southern states rush to draw new Congressional districts after Supreme Court ruling

A movement is underway that could alter the political landscape for generations to come in the Deep South. Republican-controlled states are rushing to consolidate GOP power after the Supreme Court further gutted the Voting Rights Act in a case out of Louisiana. Two weeks ago, the court limited how race can be used to draw the borders of congressional districts. Black voters say that their voices are now at stake. NPR's Debbie Elliott reports.

Apparently, enough changed their voting habits/registration to produce this, bell boi.

You're welcome.

#33 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 10:16 PM | Reply

#19 Flag: Too clever by half

#34 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-12 10:25 PM | Reply

So, a political scientist lawyer that has never practiced but teaches opines the sky is falling and littles run around like their heads have been cut off. (btw the meme is real, the body really does run wild)

Rather than explain the basis of his opinion he offers conclusions without substantial analysis. Weak from a supposed notable professor.

In any event, this political scientist lawyer that has practiced for a little over 40 years thinks the professor is full of s**t. I have previously explained why, regarding each of the cases he writes about, many times.

#35 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-13 12:04 AM | Reply

"he offers conclusions without substantial analysis."

Surely, as a lawyer, you mean legal analysis. Not historical analysis.

Your observation is reflective of what history teaches us about democracy. Democracy doesn't rise up from the void through a substantial legal analysis in the first place.

Another thing history teaches us is that democracy has often been forfeit through legal maneuverings. Germany, 1933 is the pristine example. Another one would be Three-Fifths. Hardly democratic to enslave people.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-13 01:37 AM | Reply