The decision made today by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority was dishonest and shameful. I want to share some thoughts on what it means — and how we move forward.

You’re arguing in favor of racist gerrymandering. What a sad legacy you’re creating for yourself.

Didn't listen to your thoughts. This right here will end.

Racist gerrymandering was never constitutional. Game over for you Marxist.

so its ok for louisana to draw a racist voting map and for New England to exclude Republican representation? democrats are so corrupt

No. It was just leveling the plane field. For years, Democrats could dilute Republican voters. Now Republicans can do the same to Democrats.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when YOU actually supported THIS? Why is it that these things are so grossly unfair when they aren't in Democrats favor but they're more than fair when they aren't in Republicans favor? I mean, just listen to yourself @RBReich .

This is the map you’re talking about motherfucker and why don’t you do some fucking research on that piece of shit Cleo Fields that Crooked motherfucker stay in your lane you don’t worry about fucking Louisiana you fucktard you wanna know who’s racist go look in the fucking mirror

Fuck off, Bob. Districts based on race are by definition racist.

You were saying? 🙄

You’re here.

People are catching on that the Supreme Court is opposed to a multi-racial democracy. They are corrupt. They are MAGA.

This little person lost the plot.

More hyperbole from the demented bias schmuck, Robert Reich. There was no “gibberish”, you arrogant a$$. The Constitution is not gibberish, but Dems like Robert what to interpret in such a biased way objectivity leaves them entirely. The VRA was to eliminate obstacles and obvious voting regulations based exclusively upon race. Nothing disenfranchises a group more than when a singular grouping is done to isolate and segregate from the masses. This is the opposite of voting freedom and empowerment.

So you are really upset the democrats can't divide people by color anymore? If a candidate is good it does not matter the color they can still be elected.

you are defending this stupid map?

After watching this fear-mongering propaganda video, I can only come to the conclusion that @RBReich has lost his mind. #TDSIsReal

This November’s midterms are incredibly important and I hope the effect of this awful SCOTUS decision will motivate all that sit on the sidelines to VOTE!

We are going to fix this next!

Stop lying, Bob. You said that states will start gerrymandering districts based on race. That is exactly what the Supreme Court ruled against. Louisiana had a gerrymandered district (the red one) based on race. The Supreme Court said they can't create a district based on race.

Please don’t. We’re fucking sick of @DNC “thoughts”. And we’re sick of you trying to destroy America 🇺🇸.

You have to be getting paid for such a dishonest post. The Supreme Court simply eliminated race and other personal characteristics as a consideration in establishing electoral districts. They should be done by county lines or zip codes only. It is a great day for America in getting rid of an institutional tool for discrimination. You should be proud!

"Equal representation" when their population is 30% in Louisiana is NOT "Equal" Basing districting on race is RACIST... so I'm not surprised that @RBReich is advocating for it. The SCOTUS did its job... I assume the little communist's idea of "moving forward" is to pack / reform the SCOTUS and institute new Race-based ideologies. This is 2026, Reich, not the 1960s. _________________________________ I don't always agree with SCOTUS' decisions, but I respect them enough to abide by their rulings because they know the Constitution a lot better than I (And you) do. Thank you for your attention to this matter... :)

No more Democratic racial gerrymandering, the sixth district in Louisiana was always racist!

Supreme Court must have term limits. Only way we can end abuses

i call your bs and raise you a supreme court justice

Ending racism is shameful?

-Equal representation??? -My GOD are you BASTARDS "kind" to yourselves! -Dems take a near 50 - 50 VA, then GERRYMANDER the State into a 10 to 1 Dem advantage!! -"Fairness" must mean something completely different in your native RUSSIAN!!!

I am in total agreement with you, Robert. It’s unbelievable how this Supreme Court has disemboweled the Voting Rights Act with a single decision. Every conservative justice committed perjury when they vowed to uphold precedent.

The Supreme Court’s decision today is a total disgrace. We’re watching a complete erosion of accountability and fairness in real-time. Robert Reich is spot on—this is dishonest, shameful, and a massive step backward for the country. It’s time to wake up and move forward. 🏛️🚩

So basically Democrats can’t control black voters as much as they want to is that what you’re saying?

I’m proud of them. And you only care about the decision because the majority of Americans hate your parties policies and you can not win without illegal immigrant votes.

"Dishonest and shameful." That is the entire legal analysis from a former United States Secretary of Labor and Berkeley professor. Two adjectives and a promise to share thoughts. Somewhere out there, a participation trophy is missing its winner. Professor, I teach high school anatomy. When one of my students turns in a lab report that says "this result is wrong and bad" with zero data, zero methodology, and zero citation, I hand it back with a note that says "feelings are not evidence." You have just submitted the political equivalent. Running on dial-up in a fiber-optic world, this post. So let us have the conversation you apparently cannot. Louisiana v. Callais (April 29, 2026) ruled AGAINST racial gerrymandering. The Court held that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot compel states to draw districts sorted BY RACE, because sorting citizens into geographic boxes by skin color violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority held that minority voters are entitled to "nothing less and nothing more" than what RACE-NEUTRAL criteria produce. That is color-blind equality enforced constitutionally. Which part is "dishonest," Professor? Quote the page number. Reference the holding. Show your work. Because right now the gene pool needs a lifeguard and you are in the deep end without a floatie. Now -- since you built your entire career on being the great champion of working-class and minority Americans -- let us discuss your signature policy: the minimum wage. A 2006 review by economists Neumark and Wascher examined over 100 minimum wage studies. TWO-THIRDS showed negative employment effects. The Congressional Budget Office found that a $17 minimum wage would push 350,000 workers out of the labor force entirely. South Carolina researchers found minimum wage hikes reduced employment by 15.5% for workers without a high school diploma -- the most economically vulnerable people in the country, disproportionately Black and Brown. Milton Friedman -- Nobel Prize winner -- called the minimum wage "the most anti-Negro law on our statute books" in 1966. And that is before we get to the ORIGINS of minimum wage. Progressive economists in the early twentieth century advocated for it specifically to price "undesirables" -- their word -- out of the labor market. That meant Black Americans. The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was pushed by Southern Democrats explicitly to protect white union workers from Black workers' competitive wages. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 excluded agricultural and domestic workers -- where Black Americans were concentrated in Jim Crow -- at the explicit demand of Southern Democrats on the House floor. So to summarize: You spent your career championing economic policies with documented racist origins that demonstrably harm Black and Brown workers. And you are calling a race-NEUTRAL Supreme Court ruling "shameful." Quinn's Law #1: "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent." Your minimum wage advocacy imposes the most damage on the very minority workers you claim to protect. Perfect illustration. Quinn's Law #6: "Facts are the enemy of liberalism." Two adjectives. No facts. Checks out. Quinn's Law #12: "Liberals do not engage in debate; they try to silence you. If they engaged in debate, they would lose." You labeled the ruling without engaging a single word of it. You said the ruling is "dishonest." A former Labor Secretary who champions policies with racist origins while calling constitutional equal protection "shameful" is living in a glass house -- and throwing bricks for decades. All foam, no beer. IF you agree -- LIKE, SHARE, and COMMENT JOIN Bski's Classroom on X or YouTube for more of this. But what do I know -- I am only a science teacher who actually cites sources, unlike the Berkeley professor who submitted two adjectives and called it analysis. @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2 #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

@deb18938161 How does the supreme court expect anyone to follow the rule of law when they never do???