By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While Trump’s efforts to influence redistricting have had limited success, the Supreme Court’s potential ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais* poses a far greater threat. Oral arguments suggest the Court may severely weaken or dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, allowing states to draw racially discriminatory maps. This could lead to a significant shift, potentially costing Democrats numerous seats and solidifying Republican control of the House. Consequently, the Supreme Court’s actions hold the potential to reshape the political landscape, potentially outweighing the impacts of gerrymandering efforts by Trump and state-level Republicans.
Read the original article here
The 2026 Election Is Being Decided at the Supreme Court.
It’s hard not to feel a sense of dread when considering the upcoming 2026 election, especially when the Supreme Court seems poised to play such a pivotal, possibly even decisive, role. The echoes of past elections, particularly 2000 and 2024, where judicial decisions significantly altered outcomes, loom large. The concern is that the current conservative majority may already have its sights set on influencing the future, perhaps even predetermining it. The phrase “rigged by Trump and hoodlums in robes” encapsulates the fear that the court may be leaning towards outcomes that favor a particular political agenda, regardless of the will of the people.
The worry isn’t just about specific rulings; it’s about the overall trajectory of the country. Many are concerned that if these justices continue to make decisions that appear to undermine democratic principles, it could lead to a one-party state. There’s a prevailing sense that the Supreme Court could use gerrymandering, or the manipulation of electoral district boundaries, to create an unfair advantage for one party. This would make it incredibly difficult for the opposing party to win elections, no matter how much the public votes.
The impact of such decisions extends beyond just the House or Senate. The Supreme Court’s decisions can influence how states are governed and even whether different factions of the country see themselves staying united. The potential for blue states to gerrymander in response underscores the desperation and fragmentation many feel. Some people even suggest that this might lead to American states choosing to go their separate ways. It’s hard to ignore the sentiment that the deck is stacked, that the outcome is predetermined, and that the fight for fair elections is a lost cause.
Yet, despite this widespread negativity, there’s a persistent push to keep the faith. The counterargument is that even in a heavily gerrymandered landscape, voter turnout remains critical. The hope is that a significant wave of voters could potentially overcome even the most biased maps. The call to action is clear: stay engaged, vote, and don’t succumb to the “it’s over” narrative. The fight isn’t over until it’s over, as someone put it.
The stakes are enormous. It’s no longer just about winning or losing elections; it’s about the very survival of democracy. The Supreme Court, in this scenario, is the final arbiter, the gatekeeper of fairness. Many feel that the system is broken, and that the courts are complicit in this corruption. There’s a pervasive sense that the decisions are predetermined, and that legal challenges are useless, which is why people feel the need to express that they are “sick” of the concept of the legal system working.
The fear is that a hardcore ruling from the court could cement a one-party state, essentially ending our democracy as we know it. The question is, what is the point of voting when the outcome seems predetermined? Some believe that we are stuck and that the only options are to endure it, fight it, or leave. People are tired of the “left-wing media” pretending the voting system, democracy, and the legal system will fix it. One can’t help but wonder if we are staring down the barrel of fascism, a system that, historically, has never been defeated at the ballot box.
The concern extends to the very fabric of our political system. The perception is that the Supreme Court is composed of people who have a specific agenda. The court’s decisions will likely be designed to advance a specific political ideology. The belief is that the Roberts court is designed to advance white supremacy. In such a scenario, the court is not acting as an impartial judge, but rather as an instrument of a certain political philosophy.
Ultimately, the 2026 election, and future elections, may well hinge on the decisions of the Supreme Court. There’s a feeling of powerlessness, a sense that the outcome is already decided. It’s an agonizing time for those who believe in democracy and who fear that the very foundation of the country is being eroded from within. It’s a moment that demands both action and reflection.