In this week’s Elie v. US, our justice correspondent digs into blockbuster revelations about the lead plaintiff in the VRA case. Plus, the enduring Cult of Trump.
A man holds a “Stop the steal” sign as rioters take over the steps of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.(Bill Clark / CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
An explosive report from Democracy Docket revealed that Bert Callais, the lead plaintiff in Louisiana v. Callais, the case that demolished the Voting Rights Act, was a January 6 protester. It’s unclear if Callais also attacked the Capitol as part of Donald Trump’s failed coup d’état, but it is clear that he’s an election-denying conspiracy theorist.
I can’t say I find this information surprising. That may be because I tend to judge people by the arguments they make in court, not by the color of their skin. Callais took umbrage at being placed in a majority-minority district, in a state that is one-third minority, and made an entire federal case out of it. His core argument was racist: He essentially argued that white people in Louisiana have a constitutional right to be overrepresented in Congress, that they should get more than they deserve. Finding out that a man like this has modern-day Klan robes in his closet is not really “new” information to me, just confirmation of my previous assumptions.
What is, I guess, wild to me is that the lawyers and white-wing forces organizing this attack on the Voting Rights Act knew Callais was a J-6 guy, with a long social-media history of objecting to the voting rights of non-white people, and decided to use him as the poster boy for their case anyway. Just to pull back the curtain a little bit, the “named plaintiff” in a case like this is rarely random. Cases built to get to the Supreme Court do not often start because one average citizen files a humble lawsuit that blows up. These cases are planned. The plaintiffs are picked to put the issue in the best possible light.
Take Plessy v. Ferguson. In that case, the named plaintiff, Homer Plessy, was not just some random brother who decided on his own to challenge segregation on train cars in the South. Plessy was an activist, and he was picked by civil rights organizers… because he looked white. Plessy could pass. To kick Plessy off of a whites-only train car, the conductor had to know he was Black by blood, because you couldn’t tell by just looking at him. Plessy’s phenotype highlighted the issue that segregation was based on blood quantum and nothing else.
The fact that the white folks in Louisiana thought that a January 6 guy was the perfect face for their assault on the Voting Rights Act should tell you all you need to know about the reasons these folks decided to bring the case. Louisiana v. Callais is not about Republicans versus Democrats in the battle for control of Congress. It’s about white folks trying to take political power away from Black folks.
And the Supreme Court ruled “whites win”—again.
The Bad and the Ugly
Inspired Takes
Worst Argument of the Week
Sorry, guys, I am honestly too embroiled in the Voting Rights decision to consider any other bad arguments this week.
What I Wrote
Between the reemergence of right-wing red-baiting and Donald Trump’s use of the chilling National Security Presidential Memorandum–7 to criminalize left political organizing, we’re seeing McCarthyism reborn before our eyes.
This assault on democracy cannot be ignored or wished away. Resisting it requires bravery in the face of threats and repression, a steadfast commitment to the truth, and the unwavering belief that we can—and will—overcome this darkness.
We must have an independent media that sets the record straight, unearths corruption and abuses of power, and advances a politics of justice and dignity for all if we’re to win this fight.
That’s why I’m writing to you today. This September, The Nation needs to add 100 monthly donors to sustain our progressive journalism. Your contribution makes the next investigative report, the next truth-speaking column, and the next pathbreaking essay all possible.
I hope you’ll support our work with a recurring donation today. If you donate $10 or more a month, we’ll send you a brand new “Hands Off the Free Press!” sticker to recognise your commitment to our cause. Please, donate today.
Onward,
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Editor and Publisher, The Nation
As referenced above, and like everybody else who is decent, I’m still reeling from the Supreme Court’s reinstitution of Jim Crow in last week’s voting rights case. This week, I wrote about how the Supreme Court is using that decision to fast-track getting rid of Black people in Congress.
In News Unrelated to the Current Chaos
Last month, Donald Trump asked an 8-year-old: “You think you could take me in a fight?” This prompted YouGov to poll Americans on whether they think they could beat Trump in a fistfight.
I would just like to tell 22-year-old me—the naïve young man who thought that “Whom would you like to have a beer with, George W. Bush or Al Gore?” was the dumbest polling question of my lifetime—that he was so, so very wrong.
Overall, only 55 percent of Americans thought they could take Trump in a fight. I say “only” because… do you have any idea how old 79 is? We’re talking about an age where falling down can be life-threatening. And that’s not even accounting for Trump’s shambling physical state.
The 19th dug into the numbers, and… I just really don’t understand the spell Trump has cast over this entire freaking country. In the poll, 64 percent of men said they could take Trump in a fight, while just 47 percent of women did. I promise you, women are selling themselves way short, but the men (not usually ones to underestimate themselves) are too; just five years ago, YouGov found that 71 percent of men thought they could beat up a goose (which is a ridiculously high number; a goose would kick most people’s asses). The idea that more people think they could beat up a goose than Donald Trump is absolutely insane to me.
But the rub of it all is how the numbers broke along party lines. Eighty–two percent of Democratic men and 71 percent of Democratic women said they could beat Trump—while only 46 percent of Republican men and 19 percent of Republican women said they could trounce the president. In total, 33 percent of Republicans thought they could take Trump.
Let me repeat that: Only 33 percent of these wannabe jackboot, anti-science, gun-toting racists think they can beat a 79-year-old man in a fistfight. I promise you that if they were asked if they could beat Barack Obama (a fit 64-year-old), the Republican number would approach 100 percent.
My point is: These people are in a cult. Only a cult mentality can make you think that a washed-up old man like Trump who can’t even hold a glass with one hand is somehow so “strong” that he can be an effective pugilist.
Get unlimited access: $9.50 for six months.
That said, don’t punch Donald Trump. Even if he hits you first. Just turn the other cheek. Not out of Christian goodness, but because if you turn the other cheek he’ll break his small hand on your face, and then, while he’s screaming out in pain you can say, “Osteoporosis, motherfucker,” and look like a badass.
* * *
If you enjoyed this installment of Elie v. U.S., click here to receive the newsletter in your inbox each Friday.
Elie MystalTwitterElie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and a columnist. He is also an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. He is the author of two books: the New York Times bestseller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution and Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America, both published by The New Press. You can subscribe to his Nation newsletter Elie v. U.S. here.