Rep Clyburn’s New Book Looks At How SCOTUS Is Taking Us Back To Jim Crow Era


Please consider $upporting GDPolitics by scanning the QR code below or clicking on this link

An important new book by Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), The First Eight, warns that disturbing signs suggest we may be sliding back toward a modern form of Jim Crow. In it, Clyburn examines the lives and careers of the first eight Black men to serve in Congress from South Carolina — all elected in the period after the Civil War during Reconstruction. He recalls that after the last of those eight left Congress in 1897, there was no Black representation from South Carolina for 95 years, until Clyburn himself was elected in 1992.

Clyburn uses their stories not just to spotlight that lost legacy, but to warn that many of the same forces that disenfranchised Black voters at the turn of the 20th century are resurfacing today. He draws parallels between the backlash that ended Reconstruction — Jim Crow laws, restrictive state constitutions, poll taxes, literacy tests, and violence — and current efforts to redraw voting districts and suppress minority voting power. A key part of his argument is the role the Supreme Court played then and now. He notes that foundational decisions like the Slaughterhouse Cases narrowed the scope of the 14th Amendment almost immediately after its ratification, stripping federal protections from formerly enslaved people and allowing Southern states to impose discriminatory laws. That judicial retreat set the stage for later rulings such as Plessy v. Ferguson, which constitutionally sanctioned segregation and cemented the legal framework that enabled Black disenfranchisement for generations.

In particular, Clyburn argues that modern partisan and racial gerrymandering — especially in his home state of South Carolina — resembles the “old Jim Crow power play” that erased a century of Black political representation. He points to recent attempts by the State Legislature to redraw congressional districts in a way that moved tens of thousands of Black voters out of his district, a practice a federal court found to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. When the map was challenged, however, it was the current Supreme Court that stepped in and reversed the lower court, making it significantly harder for voting-rights advocates to block discriminatory district maps. To Clyburn, this echoes the pattern of the past: when state governments use race to manipulate electoral maps, and the Court either narrows protections or declines to intervene, the result is the same erosion of political power that once produced the 95-year gap between the eighth Black congressman from South Carolina and himself.

Clyburn does not merely retell history — he warns that history is repeating. He argues the country is in the early stages of what he calls a “Third Reconstruction,” threatened by political forces determined to dilute or suppress the votes of people of color. In his view, the stakes are nothing less than the integrity of democracy itself: the story of those first eight Black congressmen is a reminder that gains in political power and representation can be undone — and undone intentionally. The book emerges not just as history, but as a timely call-to-action to defend voting rights, safeguard fair representation, and resist any revival of Jim Crow-era disenfranchisement.

Clyburn closes with a telling reminder that the first eight Black congressmen from South Carolina were routinely assigned racist and belittling nicknames by their opponents — a tactic meant to diminish their legitimacy, sow disrespect, and discourage those they represented. He notes that the weaponization of mockery and demeaning labels is not a relic of the past; it echoes loudly in today’s political climate, where leaders of color are again targeted with derisive nicknames designed to undercut their standing and weaken the communities they serve. For Clyburn, these parallels — from state laws to Supreme Court decisions to symbolic attacks — underscore his broader warning: the architecture of disenfranchisement is being rebuilt piece by piece, and the patterns of the past are reappearing in unmistakably familiar ways.

Chief Justice Roberts Slammed As Biggest Enemy To Voting Rights Act

In the October 19, 2025, edition of MSNBC’s Velshi, legal commentator Elie Mystal delivered a striking critique, telling host Ali Velshi that U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has, in many respects, become the most formidable obstacle to the enforcement of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA)—and, by extension, a significant impediment to protecting the voting rights of communities of color.

Mystal’s remarks were prompted by the high-profile redistricting case currently before the Supreme Court, Louisiana v. Calais. Experts warn that the Court’s ruling could fundamentally undermine the VRA, effectively allowing racially motivated redistricting and diluting the electoral power of Black and minority voters. The stakes are enormous: analysts suggest that, if the Court rules in favor of Louisiana’s approach, Republicans could gain as many as 19 additional House seats in the 2026 elections alone.

The case raises critical questions under the VRA’s Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that result in racial discrimination, and Section 5, which historically required jurisdictions with a documented history of voter suppression to obtain federal approval before changing voting laws. Louisiana v. Calais centers on whether the state’s proposed redistricting plan unfairly diminishes the influence of Black voters in certain congressional districts. Proponents of the challenge argue that the plan reflects legitimate political considerations, while opponents contend it is a transparent attempt to circumvent the VRA and dilute minority voting power.

This moment is reminiscent of a discussion I initiated back in 2018, when I criticized what I then termed the “unjust Roberts Supreme Court” for systematically chipping away at the VRA’s protections. At the time, such a stance was considered controversial. Today, with mainstream voices like Mystal echoing similar concerns, it appears those warnings have entered the broader public discourse.

As the Supreme Court deliberates Louisiana v. Calais, the implications extend far beyond a single state. The decision could redefine the legal contours of voting rights protections nationwide, setting a precedent that either reinforces or weakens decades of civil rights progress. Observers on both sides of the political spectrum will be watching closely, as the Court’s ruling could reshape congressional representation and influence the trajectory of American democracy for years to come.

Dem Rep Jayapal Questions FBI Director Wray Over Warrantless Searches

$upport via Cash App

Rep Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) appeared on CNN’s The Source show (07/12/23) where she discussed among other things, her questioning of FBI Director Christopher Wray about warrantless searches at a recent House hearing. Specifically, Rep Jayapal wanted to know why the FBI and other federal agencies are buying vast quantities of personal data from data brokers, and how the agencies use this warrantless search data.

Rep Jayapal dropped a bombshell during her interview, telling host Kaitlan Collins that if the FBI doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer to this important question, she will have no other choice but to vote against reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) when it expires later this year–a very big deal.

What makes this a very big deal, you ask? Well, Rep Jayapal heads the House Progressive Caucus. If she decides to vote against reauthorizing FISA, you can rest assured that nearly all House Progressives will vote with her, killing FISA.

Asked by host Kaitlan Collins whether she was satisfied by the answers she got from FBI Director Wray, Rep Jayapal said she wasn’t, adding( 1:29), “We do have significant concerns, It’s not just I. The Office of Director of National Intelligence(ODNI) is where the report came from, that said that the FBI is purchasing large amounts of data from these data brokers, and that information contains everything, from your location information, your medical information, it could contain information about all kinds of private things that American people understandably don’t want the FBI to have…These are warrantless searches…they are backdoor searches. The information is used in ways we don’t know…”

Bottom line folks, Rep Jayapal is absolutely correct that warrantless surveillance by the FBI and other federal agencies is out of control, and in serious need of a fix. We’ve become accustomed to hearing members of Congress threatening to block FISA reauthorization over the same surveillance abuses, only to have them cave at the end due to pressure from the national security establishment. Something however tells me (not exactly sure what that is), that 2023 may be the year members of Congress finally drop the hammer on FISA, or as legal eagle Jonathan Turley puts it, the year they decide against being “chumps”.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More

Rep Jim Jordan’s Shifty Answers About His Convos With Trump On January 6th

$upport via Cash App

CNN’s Brianna Keilar did an interesting segment on her New Day show (10/21/2021), where she explored Rep Jim Jordan’s very shifty answers to questions about his conversations with then President Trump on January 6th 2021. It appears Rep Jim Jordan’s accounts of his conversations with Trump on that fateful day appear to be changing with every subsequent interview, meaning he may be hiding, or attempting to hide some details about his interactions with Trump on that day.

After stating categorically in previous interviews that he spoke to Trump on January 6th, but only after the insurrection, the Ohio Congressman appears to be changing his tune lately, suggesting that he spoke to Trump on January 6th, but he doesn’t know “when those conversations happened.” Basically, he now doesn’t remember whether he spoke to Trump before or after the insurrection.

Any reasonable person presented with Rep Jim Jordan’s conflicting statements as to whether he spoke to Trump before or after the January 6th insurrection will arrive at the same conclusion, and that is, Rep Jim Jordan is attempting to hide details of his January 6th conversations with Trump from the public. Rep Jordan’s phone records on January 6th can solve this mystery instantly.

Bottom line folks, one doesn’t have to be an experienced investigator to deduce from the CNN segment that Rep Jordan should be a person of interest for the January 6th Commission. Maybe, just maybe, he’ll remember the exact time he spoke to Trump on January 6th, if he is forced to testify under oath.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

Email author at admin@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Become an Octapharma Plasma donor. Make up to $200 in one week and help save lives too! Learn More