I told the Supreme Court what would happen if it ruled against Louisiana's map. And I was right

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Janai S. Nelson

In W.E.B. Du Bois’ book of history “Black Reconstruction,” about the broken promises of emancipation and the decades of terror that followed the withdrawal of federal troops that had been sent to protect the South’s freedmen, that period of American history is distilled into a single devastating sentence: “The slave went free; stood a brief moment in the sun; then moved back again toward slavery.”

I argued the Louisiana v. Callais case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Black voters.

In October, I argued the Louisiana v. Callais case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Black voters in Louisiana. My argument was simple: Louisiana had denied Black voters a fair chance at electing representatives of their choosing by deliberately “packing and cracking” them across congressional districts. The map that remedied this discrimination was both constitutional and legally required.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority disagreed. Its 6-3 decision, rendered at the end of April, reminds us that Du Bois was not just writing about one chapter of history. He was observing a pattern that has come to define Black Americans’ long struggle for civil rights in America: short bursts of progress followed by long periods of setbacks and retrenchment. Expansion of rights followed by efforts to claw them back. Moments of hope followed by massive betrayal.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/told-supreme-court-happen-ruled-172107108.html

[LymphocyteLover]

1. wasn't too hard to predict what that racist motherfucking court would do, actually, though I applaud her effort