When the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana's race-based gerrymandering was not protected under the Constitution by the Voting Rights Act, Sen. Raphael Warnock posted that the Supreme Court had "gutted the protections that Dr. King marched for" as well as "the protections made possible by civil rights protestors who spilled blood in pursuit of a more perfect union." On Saturday, The Washington Posted a piece on how the ruling fueled fear from civil rights leaders "that history will repeat itself and reverse years of gains." Ill-gotten gains by drawing ridiculous congressional district maps based on race, maybe.
The Supreme Court’s ruling to limit a key part of the Voting Rights Act adds a new bend to the winding history of Black representation in Congress, fueling fear from civil rights leaders that history will repeat itself and reverse years of gains. https://t.co/eWPXDEVLvZ
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 2, 2026
1. Can a white person be effectively represented by a black congressman?
— Domestic Extremist (@RussianMeddler) May 2, 2026
2. Can a black person be effectively represented by a white congressman?
If your answer to either of these questions is "no" then you are the racist.
If your answer is "yes" then your article has no point
We'd thought Warnock had gone over the top with his remark about spilled blood, but apparently, in her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan had written that the Voting Rights Act "was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers."
The Voting Rights Act “was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. “Only [the American people] have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the members of this Court.” https://t.co/tRYOx0z2t3
— The New Republic (@newrepublic) May 1, 2026
Matt Ford writes for The New Republic:
Something noble and dignified has also been lost. The Voting Rights Act “was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent. “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.”
Recommended
The amendment at issue is from 1982, not the Civil War. I get that Kagan and a lot of people on the left are mad that this particular racism is ending, but a lot of us think racism is bad.
— Gary in DFW (@LakerGMC_) May 1, 2026
Kagan knows better than this. The VRA wasn't struck down. Abuse of Section 2 in order to created racist districts was struck down. Voting rights didn't take a hit, racism did.
— Buttermaker (@BiffGizmo) May 1, 2026
Does she not have a legal argument?
— Michael O'Dell (@odellm23) May 1, 2026
Born of the blood of Union soldiers? Why did Democrats try to filibuster it from ever coming to pass even 100 year AFTER that blood?
— Ken Bridges (@Ken_Bridges) May 1, 2026
Because Democrats have never, ever believed in true equality.
An amendment from 1982 was not “born of the literal blood of Union soldiers”.
— The Pious Porpoise (@piouslyporpized) May 2, 2026
No turns out creating districts based off skin color is both racist and illegal. Get fucked.
Those Union soldiers fought and died so that states could be gerrymandered by race.
Sorry man but union soldiers did not vote for the idea that more racism is the solution to racism.
— J.W. de Nashville (@C130GuyBNA) May 2, 2026
That was a later Democrat idea.
We don’t give Union soldiers enough credit for the blood they spilled in…1982.
— Chris McKeever (@chrismckeever) May 2, 2026
They didn't say "it was no longer needed." They said that it should be interpreted the way it was meant to he by the people who passed it.
— Uberminch (@uberminch) May 2, 2026
One would hope that Justice Kagan would understand that.
This is an utterly ridiculous rewrite of history.
— JarheadUSMC (@JarheadUSMC2k) May 2, 2026
You literally do not know what 'literal' means.
— ElizaRenae (@eliza_renae) May 2, 2026
She can't even get that right, let alone the decision. This is a remarkably stupid dissent.
***