'Saddest legacy': Damning verdict delivered by expert on 'cynical' Supreme Court ruling

The "cynical" Supreme Court just handed down the "saddest legacy" ever written, according to one lawyer. Dave Aronberg, the former state attorney in Florida, said on a recent episode of the "Legal AF" podcast that the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais showed the court is no longer willing to be a "guardrail for democracy." The ruling invalidated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibited states from racially gerrymandering their election maps. "This is the saddest legacy of the Robert's court, and I know that Robert's court has been decried for the presidential immunity ruling, but that ruling was confusing and is open to some interpretation. This one is not," Aronberg said. "This one's clear-cut. It devalues minority votes. It has undermined and destroyed the Voting Rights Act. And it has allowed the Republicans to engage in ... putting on hold an election that had already started in Louisiana to redistrict and manipulate districts to crack these minority access seats."Aronberg added that the ruling showed that the court is willing to "throw up their hands" and allow politicians to do what they think is necessary to retain their seats. "It is so cynical by the Supreme Court to throw up their hands and say, 'Ah, you know what? Just let the politicians deal with inherently political matters, which is redistricting.' No, someone has to be a guardrail for our democracy," he said. "And now, because of this, you have a rampant move for the politicians to start choosing their voters rather than the voters choosing their politicians. And I think it's disgraceful. I think it's going to have long-term effects."