admin
On October 15, 2025, during Supreme Court oral arguments over Louisiana’s congressional map, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stunned observers by likening minority voters’ lack of access to buildings before the Americans with Disabilities Act to Black voters’ ability to elect candidates of their choice, bluntly summarizing, “They’re disabled.” The exchange — short, shocking and hard to defend — immediately set conservative talk shows and commentators ablaze.
The case at issue centers on whether a court-ordered redrawing to create a second majority-Black district in Louisiana violated the Constitution or remedied a real Section 2 Voting Rights Act injury, and Jackson used the ADA analogy to argue Congress can require race-conscious fixes to unequal access. For plain-spoken Americans, equating race with disability is not merely a rhetorical misstep; it’s a dangerous shortcut that flattens complex legal standards and insults both Black voters and genuinely disabled citizens.
Conservative voices across the media rightly called out the comparison as unbelievable and condescending, with national commentators saying a Supreme Court justice stooping to such analogies shows either deep confusion or activist intent. This isn’t polite disagreement — it’s an elite jurist adopting identity-first reasoning that sounds more like a progressive press release than sober judicial analysis.
The attorney challenging the map, Garrett Greim, pushed back in real time, pointing out that ADA-style remedies aren’t based on stereotyping and that race-based fixes risk making sweeping assumptions about voters’ politics and views. Jackson’s shrugging reply — that if lack of access is about race you can’t have a remedy unless it’s race-conscious — underscores the bigger problem: treating entire communities as monolithic victims in need of paternalistic court solutions.
Conservatives should be unapologetic in defending both the dignity of disabled Americans and the political agency of Black Americans, neither of whom deserve to be reduced to legal shorthand by a Supreme Court seat-wearer. When a justice casually confuses distinct civil-rights frameworks, it reveals a mindset that prefers policy outcomes to neutral principles of equal treatment under the law.
This episode is a wake-up call for patriots who believe in constitutional government: we must resist judges who substitute sociology for statutes and who bake race into remedies as if race alone explains political outcomes. Follow this case closely, demand clarity from the bench, and insist that our courts protect individual rights rather than promote identity-based group preferences.
If Americans want equal voting power, the answer is to strengthen protection for voters of every background — not to normalize demeaning comparisons or to ask courts to redraw the map every time a political coalition shifts. The proper conservative response is to defend universal principles, hold activist jurists accountable, and renew faith in a system that rewards liberty and responsibility rather than identity politics.
