The U.S. Supreme Court recently rendered the Caillais decision, which effectively gutted the historic Voting Rights Act. As soon as the decision was released, the Southern states that once formed the Confederacy began to redraw district lines to eliminate Black representatives from Congress and the state legislature. In some of those former-slave states, there is likely to be no Black representation of the state in Congress.
The Confederacy rises again, thanks to the six members of the Supremr Court appointed by Republicans. Once again, Justice Clarence Thomas votes to strip rights from Black people.
Please read this commentary by teacher Ken Bernstein. He includes a speech by President Lyndon B. Johnson, explaining why the Voting rights Act was necessary for our democracy.
This decision makes the case for Supreme Court reform, either by enacting an age limit, term limits, or enlarging the Court.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The Roberts decision is not about restoring the Confederacy. It is about expanding the patriarchy that dominates old politics. The confederacy was just the part of it that was visible because of its slavery. Under all this, however, is a patriarchal system that allows men to be treated differently from women, and some men who are wealthy to be treated differently because they are wealthy. These men want you looking at racial prejudice as a motivation (no doubt it is for many) so you will not see them in the Epstein files and in other places murky with corruption.
LikeLike
thanks for passing on my posting
LikeLike
LBJ is an intriguing figure, child of Southern poverty and racism, and he pushed the Voting Rights bill through in a tough, sometimes menacing way. He felt a obligation to be true to Kennedy’s legacy. The press was always very hard on him because he didn’t fit the mold of previous presidents. But he got a voting rights law. that is now being trashed by Justice Robert’s court, passed. This speech is one for the ages and still stands the test of time other than the use of the word “negro.” It is a shame we still must fight “the good fight.”
LikeLike
I have not really kicked the tires on this, and I’m sure there are counter-arguments, but unfortunately, I think there is a very strong argument that term limits or age limits on SCOTUS justices are unconstitutional (i.e. would require a constitutional amendment).
The Constitution says justices “shall hold their Offices during good behavior.” So a law that requires justices to leave the bench after 18 years or a certain age regardless of whether they were in “good behavior” would violate that provision.
LikeLike