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."

The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map and dismantle a majority-Black district — and in doing so exposed a rare and bitter public feud between conservative Justice Samuel Alito and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The court's brief order, issued 6-3 along ideological lines, resolved a technical procedural question about when last week's blockbuster ruling gutting the Voting Rights Act takes effect in Louisiana. Raw, personal language in the justices' writings drew the most attention, according to CNN.

Jackson, the lone dissenter, accused the majority of taking steps "to influence its implementation" of the ruling and suggested the court should have stayed out of it to avoid the appearance of partiality.

“Not content to have decided the law,” Jackson wrote of the majority, “it now takes steps to influence its implementation.” The high court’s decision to “buck our usual practice,” she added, was "tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”

Alito fired back, calling Jackson's points in her dissent "trivial at best," and "baseless and insulting."

“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power,” Alito wrote in a concurrence joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “That is a ground­less and utterly irresponsible charge.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, has already suspended the state's May 16 congressional primaries to give lawmakers time to draw a new map — a move that has thrown Louisiana voters into confusion with ballots already distributed and early voting underway. That new map will almost certainly result in one fewer Black and Democratic member of Congress from Louisiana.

The decision is already reverberating across the South. Republican officials in Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama are facing growing pressure to launch their own redistricting efforts in the wake of last week's ruling.

Democrats are hoping to unseat a pair of Georgia Supreme Court justices this month, in what would be the first time in more than 100 years that a sitting state justice has lost election — but according to Bolts Magazine, a ruling from the court itself created a massive flaw in the system that potentially lets the justices cancel their own election after losing, and one of them is not responding to questions about whether they will take advantage of it.

"Two liberal lawyers, former Democratic state Senator Jen Jordan and personal injury attorney Miracle Rankin, are seeking to oust Justices Sarah Warren and Charlie Bethel, respectively, and all but Warren agreed to interviews with Bolts," said the report. "The elections are officially nonpartisan, but the challengers are running with Democratic Party backing, while Governor Brian Kemp and other Republicans have rallied around the incumbents."

According to the report, the issue stems "from Justice Keith Blackwell’s announcement in February of [2020] that he would resign in November, just weeks before his term was due to end. Blackwell had been due to face two challengers in May, but when he announced his plans to step down in the future, five months after voters were set to weigh in, state officials said the election should be postponed until 2022. Blackwell’s opponents sued to keep the election on the ballot, but the state’s high court sided against them in a 6-2 ruling, with Warren in the majority. (Bethel recused himself from this case)."

The dissenting justices warned that this logic would allow judges to resign after losing an election, letting the governor appoint their replacement and effectively nullifying the election altogether — a state of affairs Bolts editor Daniel Nichanian described as a "staggering loophole."

Bethel pledged to serve out his full term even if he loses. However, "Warren, in addition to declining an interview request, also declined to respond to written questions" — leaving it an open possibility she could exploit the loophole to block Jordan from being seated if she wins.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, which severely limited the use of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to require a representative number of majority-Black legislative districts, looms over the judicial election, with Jordan and Rankin pushing the issue hard.

By contrast, the current court, eight of whose nine members were originally appointed by Republican governors, has a mixed record on voting rights. They did shut down a plot by MAGA election board officials to rewrite state voting procedures, but also "played an instrumental role in shielding Donald Trump from criminal punishment for his efforts to overturn his election defeat in Georgia in 2020," Bolts noted.