Leadership and Justice that Looks the Other Way and Ignores Racism
As I explained multiple times. Turn out was less in 2024 that in 2020. 3 million people did not vote, The same numeric of ~ three million who voted for others did similar in 2024 and it had a larger impact. Turn out was less in 2024 by percentage of eligible voters 59.7% as compared to 61% in 2020. There is little or nothing much else to look at after 2024.
They would not vote for a racist Trump and did not turn out for Kamela a minority
Except as Kareem points out, there is an overflow of prejudice when it comes to immigrants. A few have let this show through in their remarks about minority immigrants. It you are not the right color from the right place, you are bound to be blocked as an immigrant. Since SCOTUS ruled, we will see more deportation.
Meanwhile the United States Replacement rate went from 2.01 in 2006 to 1.62 presently. Kareem has an interesting commentary today, And I am surprised at how some say what they said so openly. Read on.
Two-Faced Leadership, Blind Justice That Ignores Racism, Kareem Takes on the News
Kareem: There was a moment during the 2024 presidential election when I said to myself,
“There is no way Donald Trump is going to be reelected. Kamala Harris is going to win. America is going to have a woman President—and a woman of color, at that.”
That moment came during the only debate between the former President and the Vice President, when Trump, in a rambling response to a question about immigration from moderator David Muir, said of Haitian immigrants, “In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats! They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live there!” On the split screen, Harris shook her head and laughed. In my living room, I shook my head and laughed. The American people, I was absolutely certain, were all shaking their heads and laughing. And that is why I am not a professional political prognosticator.
Last week, the Supreme Court issued two major rulings clearing the path for the Trump administration to strip humanitarian protections from approximately 1.3 million immigrants, and to block asylum seekers from applying at the U.S./Mexico border. In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the court ruled that the administration can terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from Haiti and 16 other countries, a designation that has shielded them from deportation due to dangerous conditions in their home nations. By that same score, the court ruled that migrants cannot apply for asylum at the U.S./Mexico border but must physically enter the country in order to do so.
Megyn Kelly—the one-time Fox News star who angered Donald Trump at a debate, tried to ride that notoriety to mainstream fame at NBC, flopped, and ended up hosting her own MAGA-loving podcast on YouTube—celebrated the ruling with revolting candor on her program:
“Go home! Get out! We know our country is better than yours…you being here only dilutes it for us…we don’t want you. We don’t care if you’re offended. Get out. Go home. Go back to f—ing Haiti!”
Donald Trump himself couldn’t have found more telling words to describe the way MAGA feels about immigrants whose skin is darker than orange.
In order to rule against the Trump administration, the court would have had to find the appellant had proven these policies were the result of racial animus; in that case, they would trigger the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged that many of Trump’s statements about immigrants pushed political discourse into territory that “would have scandalized the public just a short time ago.” But the majority found these statements legally “insufficient” to prove the TPS termination was motivated by race. Ditto then-DHS-Secretary Kristi Noem’s statements calling Haitians “leeches,” “entitlement junkies,” and “foreign invaders,” while closing with, “WE DON’T WANT THEM. NOT ONE.” Alito chose not to put any of those quotes in his written opinion. He didn’t mention Trump’s infamous reference to “shithole countries.” He simply ruled that all those ugly words didn’t prove the administration was acting with racially motivated malice.
What evidence would the justices require to prove such a claim, if not the verifiably false lies broadcast live during a presidential debate and aimed specifically at the Haitian immigrant community? At some point, a legal standard that isn’t satisfied by blatantly racist presidential rhetoric stops being a test and simply becomes a rubber stamp. The key word in Justice Alito’s majority opinion is “could.” He says the challenged statements “could rest on race-neutral justifications.” Because a non-racist explanation is theoretically imaginable, the majority sees no reason to investigate whether racism might have driven the outcome. Follow that logic and every future equal-protection challenge to an executive immigration decision is dead on arrival. Any administration can attach a policy rationale to any action after the fact. Nobody prints “racially motivated” on the memo. That’s the whole reason the Equal Protection Clause exists. How much more explicit does the evidence need to be before the court’s conservative members will treat it as evidence of intent?
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her asylum dissent from the bench, warning that “more people will die” as a result of the ruling. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented sharply in the TPS case, writing that “it is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.” Kagan quoted a number of those offensive statements in her dissent, creating a public record that will last well beyond this ruling. Dissents get read by courts, by historians, by advocates building the next generation of legal arguments. That material does not disappear because the majority preferred not to engage with it.
According to Pew Research data from September 2025, 63% of Black adults already viewed the Supreme Court unfavorably before this ruling. That number has moved in a downward direction for years. The 6-3 vote along party lines implies something that the ruling’s text cannot. A conservative majority that sides with a hard-right President on every major case involving race makes it very difficult to believe that its justices are simply applying the law rather than endorsing that President’s worldview. In other words, we all know exactly what’s going on here.
The six justices who were in the majority (like the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and almost every other high ranking Republican official in Washington) each purports to be a devout follower of Jesus Christ, an irony Christ himself surely would not appreciate, were he available to be interviewed on The Megyn Kelly Show. His ruling on immigration is plain:
“I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
Unfortunately, his opinion carries no weight in this case, and cannot help the 1.3 million immigrants who now have no legal status in the country where they have been desperately trying to live their lives.