WATCH:Democrat Rep. OUTRAGED After SCOTUS Blocks Race-Based Gerrymandering, Calls Ruling “Sad”
Democrats have spent years presenting themselves as defenders of democratic institutions. That message becomes significantly harder to sustain when party leaders openly criticize constitutional rulings simply because those rulings disrupt their political strategy.
That contradiction was on full display during a recent interview onMSNOWwhenRep. Susan DelBenereacted to the Supreme Court’sdecisionto block Louisiana’s race-based congressional map.
DelBene called the ruling a “sad day for democracy.”
The statement was revealing—not simply because of its rhetoric, but because of what the underlying case actually involved.
The Supreme Court stepped in after concerns that Louisiana’s congressional map relied too heavily on race when drawing district boundaries. The broader constitutional question is straightforward: should states be allowed to sort voters by race when determining political representation?
For many Democrats, the answer appears to be yes—at least when doing so benefits their electoral prospects.
During the interview, DelBene attempted to shift the conversation away from the constitutional concerns surrounding the map itself. Instead, she argued that courts should not be involved in decisions like this and suggested Congress should rewrite voting laws.
That argument ignores the basic function of the judiciary.
Courts exist todeterminewhether government actions comply with constitutional protections. When legislatures create policies that potentially violate equal protection principles, judicial review is not activism—it is a core constitutional responsibility.
Source: The Gateway Pundit
