For decades, Americans have been sold a bizarre paradox: the best way to fight racial discrimination is with more racial discrimination. Draw congressional districts by skin color. Sort voters into racial blocs. Treat citizens not as individuals but as demographic data points whose political preferences are assumed based on melanin. Slap the label “equity” on it and dare anyone to object.

Well, someone just objected. The Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling this week that should have every American who believes in equal treatment under the law standing a little taller. But not everyone is celebrating. One former president, in fact, is throwing a very public tantrum.

From the Daily Wire:

On Wednesday, after the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on intentional racial discrimination forbids race-based redistricting, former President Barack Obama issued a screed denouncing the decision that was, in turn, harshly criticized on social media.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities – so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit ‘racial bias,'” Obama wrote on X. “And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers – not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.”

Read that again. The first Black president of the United States — the man who built an entire political brand on transcending racial division — is now openly defending the practice of carving congressional districts based on skin color. The Court says that’s unconstitutional, and Obama calls it a threat to democracy. The irony is thick enough to choke on.

Americans noticed. And they were not gentle about it.

‘You have absolutely lost your mind’

The backlash on social media arrived fast and landed hard. Matt Van Swol spoke for millions: “You have absolutely lost your mind. YOU were the guy who was supposed to get us PAST sorting people by race. You said judge people by character not color. Now you’re calling it ‘voter suppression’ when the Court strikes down a district drawn ENTIRELY BY SKIN COLOR?”

Ouch. But it got worse for the former president.

Fox News host Jimmy Failla didn’t mince words: “I can’t imagine being a nation’s first black president and wanting to take them all the way backwards on race, but if you like your garbage legacy you can KEEP your garbage legacy.” That “if you like your plan” echo was no accident — and everyone caught it.

Legal scholar Ilya Shapiro offered the constitutional gut-punch, calling the ruling “the right call and a victory for the colorblind Constitution.” The Voting Rights Act, Shapiro noted, doesn’t require majority-minority districts. States simply can’t use race to sort voters like inventory.

Here’s what’s really revealing. Obama’s complaint hinged on the phrase “guise of partisanship” — as if any redistricting outcome that doesn’t guarantee the Left’s preferred racial configuration must be secretly racist. It’s a rigged framework. Heads they win, tails you’re a bigot. The Supreme Court just flipped that table over.

What the justices actually ruled

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the 6-3 majority, delivered a ruling anchored in constitutional bedrock: “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”

The distinction Alito drew is one Obama deliberately blurred. Partisan gerrymandering — ugly as it may be — is constitutionally permissible. Racial gerrymandering is not. This ruling doesn’t suppress anyone’s vote. It forbids the government from using race as the primary lens for drawing maps.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill praised the decision as ending “Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map.” The White House was blunter, calling it “a complete and total victory” and adding: “The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in.”

The maps don’t lie

Want proof of the absurdity Obama is defending? Look at Louisiana’s now-invalidated second majority-Black district — a cartographic monstrosity stretching diagonally from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, shaped not by geography or community but by racial demographics. No honest person looks at that map and sees fair representation.

Daily Wire contributor Megan Basham offered an even closer-to-home jab, posting Illinois’s wildly gerrymandered district map with a two-word caption: “lol. This is your home state.” Democrats in glass statehouses probably shouldn’t lecture anyone about gerrymandering.

The original dream, restored

This ruling isn’t the death of civil rights. It’s a homecoming. The civil rights movement fought so that Americans would be treated as individuals — not sorted into racial categories by government mapmakers chasing demographic quotas. For too long, the Voting Rights Act was contorted into a tool for precisely the kind of race-based engineering it was written to prevent.

The Supreme Court corrected that on Wednesday. Barack Obama may not approve. Fortunately, the colorblind Constitution doesn’t require his permission.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that race-based congressional redistricting violates the Constitution.
• Obama attacked the decision and was widely mocked for abandoning his post-racial promises.
• The ruling restores the colorblind constitutional principle the civil rights movement championed.
• Democrats’ real concern isn’t minority representation — it’s losing guaranteed partisan seats.

Sources: Daily Wire, the Guardian