For decades, Democrats and their media allies have made clear that only a reliably liberal Supreme Court will satisfy them. Any ruling that doesn't align with progressive priorities is immediately branded as illegitimate, anti-democratic, or a threat to civil rights. This pattern was on full display after the Court's recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, where a 6-3 majority held that Louisiana's race-based gerrymandering violated the Constitution.
The ruling itself was straightforward: legislators cannot draw districts along racial lines because that constitutes racial discrimination. Yet the press coverage was anything but measured. The Associated Press declared the Court had "weakened a landmark voting rights law's protections against discrimination in redistricting." NPR called it "another severe blow to the Voting Rights Act." The Guardian claimed the Court had "demolished" the Voting Rights Act and "gutted" protections against racial discrimination.
Left-wing commentators went further. Elie Mystal of The Nation wrote, "The Supreme Court Has Completed Its Quest to Kill the Voting Rights Act." At the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie argued that disallowing racial gerrymandering is itself racist, comparing it to Jim Crow. The Times editorial board accused the justices of "acting as partisans." And former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan revived calls to "demolish" the Court, urging Democrats to make court expansion a top priority.
This reaction wasn't really about the Louisiana case. It was about the Court itself. Since conservatives gained a majority in 2020, Democrats have waged a relentless campaign to delegitimize the institution. There was no honeymoon period. Every decision—regardless of legal merit—is met with accusations of tyranny and illegitimacy. Even if liberals privately agreed with the Louisiana ruling, they would never say so publicly. Admitting the Court sometimes gets it right would undermine a years-long effort to undermine the independent judiciary.
This campaign has included personal attacks on conservative justices. Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced a coordinated smear campaign during his confirmation, followed by an assassination attempt after the Dobbs decision leak. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have been targeted by left-wing-funded media campaigns alleging cozy relationships with Republican donors. And liberal justices themselves have broken precedent by publicly attacking their conservative colleagues.
What's often lost in this narrative is that Republican-nominated justices have frequently sided with the liberal bloc on major cases. For 40 years, conservative appointees have been more likely to cross the aisle than their Democratic counterparts. This Court has also repeatedly ruled against Trump administration overreach. Yet none of that matters to those who demand a Court that consistently delivers progressive outcomes.
The push for court-packing and impeachment isn't new. It echoes the campaigns that derailed Robert Bork and Miguel Estrada, and nearly destroyed Clarence Thomas. But it's notable that this assault comes after decades of liberal judicial victories, many enabled by Republican appointees. The current conservative majority has been more restrained than its critics admit.
As the Louisiana ruling sparks new redistricting battles ahead of the midterms, Democrats like Senator Raphael Warnock have blasted the decision as "devastating." Meanwhile, Justice Neil Gorsuch has defended the Court as functional despite ideological divides. The question remains: will the left ever accept a Court that doesn't always side with them? The evidence suggests the answer is no.
