he day before a consequential 2008 election, the Democratic presidential nominee had time to scold young Black men for wearing sagging pants. “Brothers should pull up their pants,” 

 a 47-year-old Barack Obama, imploring them to have respect for others. “You are walking by your mother, your grandmother — your underwear is showing. People might not want to see your underwear — I’m one of them.” Earlier that summer, Obama had spent Father’s Day 

 fathers at a Black Chicago church with a membership of 20,000 to stop sitting around the house “watching SportsCenter” and to pursue an education beyond the eighth grade. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception,” he said.

It’s not just Obama who has invoked anti-Black misandry and peddled dangerous tropes to politically grandstand. The entire Democratic Party apparatus has a lengthy track record of reprimanding, blaming, and criminalizing Black men. In 2020, Joe Biden 

 “you ain’t Black” if you didn’t vote for him. In a 1996 campaign speech championing the 1994 crime bill that fed the mass incarceration of Black men, Hillary Clinton issued her infamous dog whistle, calling for the nation to “take back our streets” from “super predators” who have “no conscience, no empathy.” Now, as the 2024 presidential election races to a finish, an opportunity to demean, rather than uplift, Black men rises again.

Lecturing Black men at a recent Pennsylvania campaign stop for Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, Obama 

 them of sexism for not showing more support for her: “Part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.” Polls show Black male Democratic support has declined since 2020, 2016, and 2008 by numbers that could make or break Georgia, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, or other swing states. A vast 

 of Black men still support Harris over Trump, however, especially when compared with white male voters.

Harris seems resistant to critiquing Black men herself. In an 

 a few days after Obama’s Pennsylvania appearance, she pushed back on journalists’ questions about expectations of Black men’s support: “Your underlying premise is an assumption that I’m supposed to have Black men in my back pocket in terms of their vote. And that I should be taking that for granted — because I don’t. Black men are no different from anybody else — you have to earn their vote.” She repeated the sentiment later, stating, “I intend to earn the vote of everyone, including Black men.”

, a last-minute effort to bolster flagging support among a demographic drawing increasing attention. But the way she is explicitly courting the Black male vote — including 

 showing nonvoting Black men being shunned by women — mimics the offensive stereotyping of her Democratic predecessors. Harris pledges to invest in “mentorship and leadership development” programs like Obama’s 

, reinforcing a long and troubling history of singling out Black men for their supposed cultural shortcomings. Noticeably, no proposals for other demographics — Harris’s agenda for women or rural Americans, for example — calls for federal investment in their social skills. This paternalistic and condescending logic misleadingly implies that if Black boys and men simply had mentors, role models, and connections to established leaders in their communities, they could succeed — and avoid getting shot by police or spending a night in jail. They could integrate into the American upper class by being more upstanding, somehow assuaging what’s held them back: their Blackness. Such an approach perpetuates deep-rooted problems instead of solving them — as if a lack of leadership qualities and soft skills, rather than centuries of structural racism, is what has relegated them to an economic underclass. Black men don’t need mentorship — we need abolition: the tearing down of all violent, oppressive systems and the construction of new reparative systems that advance us all. A genuinely transformative agenda for Black men would uplift from the bottom, not reprimand from the top.

What Obama, Harris, and other Democratic Party leaders communicate with their condescending rhetoric is much deeper and more troubling than an ostensibly righteous attempt to root out misogynoir on the national stage. In the eyes of establishment Democrats, Black people 

 the party their vote, so long as the threat of a Republican victory persists. Facing the clear and present danger of a second Trump administration, Black folks must stomach any sins and abominations the Democrats have committed or else pay a more expensive price in November.

Feeling entitled to Black votes, Democrats never ask why Black male support has waned. Do sexist Black male voters exist? Of course. As in other families — white, Asian, Latino — patriarchy has reared its ugly head in Black households. And yet the idea that sexism is the main factor driving a minority of Black men away from the party is overblown. In 2022, the news abounded with similar 

 doubting Black men’s willingness to vote for Georgia’s Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams, who would have been the nation’s first Black woman governor. Then 84 percent of Black men cast their ballot for Stacey Abrams, just a hair shy of the 85 percent of Black men who 

 show the economy is the top issue for Black voters, especially men. With record-high inflation, low wages, and skyrocketing household debt, it’s no wonder some Black men are considering skipping out on an election or two or crossing party lines (though Black men are hardly alone here). One Democratic pollster who segmented Black voters by key characteristics 

 Pod Save America’s Jon Favreau to the “rightful cynic” Black voter, who misses elections “not because they forgot,” but because they hate Democrats, Republicans, and the entire system: “They hate all of the institutions that have failed them.”

And let’s not forget Palestine. When more than 1,000 Black pastors, representing hundreds of thousands of Black congregants, 

 on the Biden-Harris administration to push Israel to end its military offensive on Gaza, their brave pastoral calls went unanswered by Democratic Party leaders.

Perhaps these same Black voters, men in particular, saw how quickly Obama stepped in to 

dissent when NBA players began a strike for racial justice in 2020 — a liberal version of Fox News host Laura Ingraham telling Lebron James to “shut up and dribble.”

After Democrats’ failure to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a low bar for reform by any justice-minded standard, Black men watched Biden pivot to calling for 100,000 

 cops nationwide, racing to defame the movement to defund the police faster than Republicans. They saw Biden’s border patrol agents on horseback 

 to whip Haitian migrants at the U.S. southern border, evoking centuries of racial subjugation. Maybe Black men were stunned to see Biden’s promise to cancel all federal student loan debt for graduates of any HBCU, public or private, fail to come to fruition while he resumed student loan payments that had been paused for nearly five years. Perhaps Black men watched Obama, Harris, and other elected leaders remain quiet as the State of Missouri 

 Marcellus Williams, a Black man with evidence pointing to his innocence and widespread support for his clemency.

In reality, the problems Black men face represent the pinnacle of the failures of our economic and criminal legal system and the absence of a care or solidarity economy. Black men hold no unique or innate character flaws that must be chided, punished, or incentivized to vote with hollow promises that fail to address the structural issues they face — especially when some of those promises will actually intensify the problems plaguing Black men by using them as pawns to carry out a deeply problematic capitalist agenda.

Take the commitment to invest in cryptocurrency in the Opportunity Agenda for Black Men. Harris professes support for a “regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black men who invest in and own these assets are protected.” 

Black investors lost disproportionately more

 in crypto’s crash than white investors, but that’s a reason for her to be cracking down on this faux promise of financial liberation, not democratizing its faults and failures.

Two of the most prominent crypto ad campaigns, starring 

, targeted Black men with lofty promises of safety and “new money” for Black people. The advertised firms, 

, have since gone bankrupt, ending in financial catastrophe for those who bought in. Bitcoin ATMs, which charge fees 

 per transaction, are often located in majority-Black neighborhoods. For Black neighborhoods in Texas, the state’s embrace of crypto mining has created an environmental crisis as it 

 the electrical grid and puts residents’ 

Crypto is dominated by white men who appear committed to halting racial progress. Brian Armstrong, CEO of crypto platform Coinbase, 

 the phrase “Black Lives Matter” and any discussion of “social activism” at the company. Even after catching heat for anti-Black hiring practices and hostile work environments, Coinbase 

 from its terms of service in August 2021.

By doubling down on crypto’s liabilities, Harris enacts what sociologist Louise Seamster calls predatory inclusion. Marginalized groups are given access to goods and services they have been historically excluded from, but at a steep price that means they will never reap the full benefits, while the people really

being enriched are the white CEOs shilling the products in the first place. One of Harris’s central accomplishments as California’s attorney general was winning a large consumer settlement on 

. Crypto functions as today’s subprime mortgage, and this time Harris is cheerleading the fraud.

Harris’s agenda is nowhere near bold enough to meet the demands of people today, but it isn’t all bad. Efforts to tackle sickle cell disease and prostate cancer, which Black men experience at far higher rates than other groups, are indeed worth more time and resources. Canceling medical debt, which is disproportionately 

 by Black residents in the Deep South, will do wonders for working people trying to get by. Former President Trump may not have published an agenda for Black men, but the disaster of his first term shows what he intends: immunity for police, slashes to the Affordable Health Care Act, deeply racist rhetoric, and the greenlighting of Supreme Court justices and other judicial actors to tear down critical legal protections like the Civil Rights Act and affirmative action.

But the unspoken appeal of Harris’s agenda for Black men — that she won’t be putting cash directly in the pockets of Black folks, but rather giving them the “tools” to create wealth if they’re savvy enough to maneuver systemic barriers — is exactly what’s wrong with what she calls an “opportunity economy.” Black men — all Black folks — need results, not opportunities. An agenda to help Black people must help poor Black people, not just the “middle class.” A real agenda for Black men would feature a federal job guarantee or a livable universal basic income, not paltry and risk-laden financial support to be “entrepreneurial.” It would gut the school-to-prison pipeline; abolish the prison industrial complex and use clemency powers to liberate masses of Black men from incarceration; cancel student debt, medical debt, and criminal legal fines and fees holding down Black communities; cut a reparations check to Black families and provide baby bonds to their children; raise wages and strengthen worker rights; and implement Medicare for All and make college free.

A quick search of Harris’s plan for Black men reveals which words are absent: “gun” or “gun violence,” “climate” or “environment,” “union” or “labor,” “veteran,” even “democracy.” A plan for Black men must do more than appeal to those who aspire to be upwardly mobile and win according to the flawed logic of our hyper-competitive society. Black men — who encompass queer Black men, disabled Black men, working-class Black men and young Black men — need abolition, solidarity, love, justice, and liberation.

Black Men Need Abolition, Not Kamala Harris’s Opportunity Agenda

ne silver lining of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court term was that the court upheld Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, ordering Alabama to redraw its congressional map with an additional majority-Black district. For the first time since Reconstruction, Black Alabamians were on track to have representation finally parallel to the state’s racial makeup. But advocates’ celebratory cheers were short-lived. Weeks after the ruling, Republicans flat-out ignored the Supreme Court order, drawing a congressional map with only one majority-Black district. In a bold act of defiance, Gov. Kay Ivey, a Republican, said, “The Legislature knows our state, our people, and our districts better than the federal courts.”

A three-judge trial court will review the new map, but through appeals to the Supreme Court, Alabama may try to run out the clock until the 2024 election has passed, essentially handing the state’s Republicans another free election with an illegal map. Conservatives have made it plain that they will respect the judiciary only until the moment it threatens their power. So in the face of the Supreme Court’s assault on basic civil rights — from undermining education to gutting reproductive health care to hampering democracy — why should the left succumb to the harsh reign of judicial supremacy? The next progressive demand in the wake of an egregious ruling may need to embrace “

,” a political legal strategy that refuses to allow the Supreme Court to have the last word on the Constitution’s meaning, and ignore certain rulings altogether. Backed by the popular support of the American public and leveraging the power of his bully pulpit, President Joe Biden could mitigate the damage of a flagrantly antidemocratic court ruling by asserting a differing interpretation of the Constitution for the sake of preserving our rights.

According to the liberal democratic ideal, the Supreme Court is supposed to call balls and strikes — an umpire ensuring that everyone plays by the legal rules. While the court has never been a neutral arbiter of justice, today it plays pitcher and batter, too. Three of the court’s justices were scandalously brought onto the bench by a president who lost the popular vote and were confirmed by a Senate body that’s disproportionately skewed by Republican votes. Since then, they have carried out a deeply harmful political agenda, overturning well-settled laws that did everything from 

. The court has recently escalated its use of the shadow docket, which, as Stephen Vladeck 

, sinisterly makes new laws that advance conservative agendas while shielding themselves from scrutiny or having to fully engage with a case’s merits. We can see this dynamic of corruption, disregard for ethics, and an unhinged conservative political agenda play out clearly with the ruling striking down student debt relief.

Debt abolition activists achieved what was once thought impossible in August 2022. After years of intense political pressure from the left led by the Debt Collective, the union for debtors that I organize with, Biden announced a policy cancelling up to $20,000 in student debt per eligible borrower — the largest transfer of household wealth in recent American history. If every eligible debtor applied and was granted relief, an estimated $430 billion in debt would disappear. 

 would have their debt completely zeroed out, disproportionately lifting Black, Hispanic, and low-income Americans out of financial despair.

My collaborators and I at the Debt Collective took a quick victory lap around the pundits and politicians from both major political parties who had peddled false narratives about why debt abolition couldn’t be done for years. We also made it clear that $20,000 was far from enough and that we would keep pressuring Washington to deliver on the remaining $1.3 trillion in student debt.

We knew we’d punched a hole in the wall of what Andrew Ross, one of our co-founders, calls a creditocracy — an economy where the revolving door of debt payments endlessly rotates. Such a debtor- and creditor-based economy couldn’t have been built without bank-friendly politicians like Biden himself, a man once dubbed the “Senator from the MBNA” by the conservative National Review. Throughout his long career in the Senate, Biden opposed free college and championed bills that stripped student debtors’ bankruptcy protections. It is all the more impressive that a strategic and militant movement of debtors pushed him to acknowledge that they need and deserve relief.

But in the last ruling of the 2023 term, Biden v. Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court — with the help of dark-money organizations, bad-faith plaintiffs, and Republican state attorneys general — tried to patch up the wall activists had just punctured. Biden’s relief plan relied on the HEROES Act, a 2003 law that grants the secretary of education the ability to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” related to student loans in the event of a national emergency. In a 6–3 ruling, the conservative majority invoked a recently fabricated legal theory called 

 to suggest that eliminating from $10,000 to as much as $20,000 for approximately 43 million borrowers each was a more “significant” presidential intervention than Congress could have intended in passing the HEROES Act. But the executive action’s significance — like the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic — was exactly the point. In a scathing dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote plainly that the court “violate[d] the Constitution” in its gross overstep into the role of the executive branch and “exercise[d] authority it does not have.”

The ruling, though unsurprising, was still infuriating. I had co-authored a research paper exposing the fallacious 

 of claims at the heart of the case. A party seeking to remedy their supposed injury must persuade the court that they themself was harmed — a skin-in-the-game standard called standing. But in Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court contravened this bedrock principle of judicial law by granting standing to the state of Missouri, which was suing on behalf of the student loan servicer MOHELA — something the court had not previously allowed any plaintiffs to do. And they did so on the basis of a made-up harm. The plaintiffs falsely asserted that MOHELA would lose revenue as a result of Biden’s relief program — a claim no one bothered to check because no court conducted the evidence review process known as discovery.

This ruling hit me — and my wallet — personally. The average Black college graduate owes around $50,000 in student debt — almost twice that of our white peers — and I was no exception; I now owe tens of thousands of dollars in student debt. I was eligible for Biden’s broad-scale relief and had already applied for it and been approved before the court’s ruling foreclosed on my family’s future.

As a Black North Carolinian, I’ve had a front-row seat to other aristocratic power grabs by the Supreme Court. In 2017, when I was an undergraduate at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, the largest HBCU in the nation, the Republican-controlled General Assembly gerrymandered electoral maps that split the campus in half, defying the guidelines to keep “communities of interest” whole. At the time I was a 

 with the state chapter of Common Cause, which had already filed a lawsuit to fight antidemocratic efforts to quell Black and Democratic voices. But the Supreme Court opted to leave the rigged maps in place for a fourth consecutive election in 2018.

The court’s affirmative action decision, issued the day before Biden v. Nebraska, had also been a blow. In joint cases with Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill as defendants, the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs for universities, as if the days of structural racism were now magically behind us. (Tellingly, military academies were carved out as an exception.) In her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described 

: Both John and James can trace their North Carolina roots back generations, and “both want to honor their family’s legacy by attending the state’s flagship educational institution.” She continued, “John, however, would be the seventh generation to graduate from UNC. He is White. James would be the first; he is Black…. Recognizing this aspect of James’s story does not preclude UNC from valuing John’s legacy or any obstacles that his story reflects.” I’m a Black graduate student at UNC whose ancestral trajectory mimics James’, and Jackson’s scenario hits home. The court’s ruling, though, hits harder.

Members of the U.S. Supreme Court pose for a portrait on Capitol Hill. Photograph by Erin Schaff/The New York Times via Redux.

Over and over again, the Supreme Court has written over the American social contract, erasing marginalized voices and elevating corporate powers and their foot soldiers. At best, Chief Justice John Roberts has mistaken himself for a congressman who holds a gavel. During oral arguments on the student debt case, he asked whether cancelling student debt would be “fair” to people who took out loans to start a small business, conveniently forgetting that almost $800 billion of Paycheck Protection Program loans were virtually all erased since Covid. In his opinion on affirmative action, he 

 that classifying students by race in 2023 was “simply too pernicious.” Liberal dissenters shot back in both of the cases, with Kagan writing that the court has appointed itself the “arbiter” of political disputes and Jackson decrying how the court “pitifully perceiv[es] itself as the sole vanguard of legal high ground,” Don Quixote–style. Whether it’s the Supreme Court’s demolition of democracy in preserving gerrymandering, upholding of creditocracy by dismantling student debt relief, or blessing of structural oppression by ending affirmative action, these antidemocratic decisions are growing too common. People like me, a young nonwhite voter in a swing state, need a response from the executive branch motivated by a deep sense of moral righteousness equivalent to the scale of harm currently being inflicted.

he day before the justices halted debt relief, they sided with a homophobic website designer who used religion to justify her refusal to make a nonexistent gay couple a wedding website no one asked for. Now that such bigotry has been green-lighted, 

 to halt gay marriage race ahead. When the Supreme Court demolished the long-held right to an abortion in 2022, it put mostly low-income women at risk of inadequate health care, incarceration, and death. Justices have restricted the EPA’s authority to tackle climate change, stripped labor rights, given a thumbs-up to antidemocratic practices such as racial and partisan gerrymandering, and more. And the forecast for the 2024 docket looks treacherous, too.

Should the Supreme Court continue pushing to the far right, it could 

 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which holds corporate profiteers accountable, and end the consumer protections the agency enforces along with it. Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and other essential programs won’t be immune either. The court could limit the enforcement authority of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other federal agencies working to prevent market manipulation or fraud. It could even expand gun possession rights for domestic abusers. It might preemptively ban a federal wealth tax, delivering a massive windfall to 

 and upending our tax code at a time when our nation should be returning to an Eisenhower-era top marginal tax rate to help lower the cost of public goods.

The Supreme Court’s rulings and the cases it hears aren’t random. They are the deliberate outcome of a world in which billionaires can bring cases before the justices they bribe. Justice Clarence Thomas has had 

 with right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow, accepting luxury superyacht trips and private jet flights from Crow “virtually every year” 

. Justice Samuel Alito took grand trips funded by the conservative billionaire Paul Singer, a GOP mega donor “who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes,” 

 ProPublica. Crow and Singer each had ties to the lawsuit that halted student debt relief, among other business before the court. For decades, a gang of billionaires have 

 to the Supreme Court, including GOP contributor David Sokol, who, four months before oral arguments in Biden v. Nebraska were even heard, foretold in a speech that relief would be “overturned by the Supreme Court.” These unethical dark-money activities come as little shock given that more than a decade ago the Supreme Court — the only federal judges not bound by a code of conduct — gave billionaires and corporations a green light to funnel unlimited amounts of funds into elections via the Citizens United decision.

The intense corruption throughout the court combined with the harm its rulings cause demands nothing less than an intervention by the other two branches, fast. But so far, Republicans have practically cheered the court on. Meanwhile, Democrats have been slow to act, refusing to wield anything close to the full potential of their power even to protect the communities sending them to Congress. As of 2022, 75 percent of Americans 

 in the Supreme Court; for Democrats, it’s 87 percent. 

 in 2020 that the Supreme Court is inherently undemocratic, unaccountable to the American public, and clearly on the side of the elite and called for ending its corrosive role in society. Justice Kagan might even agree, writing in her Biden v. Nebraska

dissent that the court has become a “danger to a democratic order.”

Balancing the judicial scales — whether through abolition, expansion, or other reforms — will require congressional action, but the legislative branch is desperately in need of its own structural changes. We the people seem to be locked in a cage of judicial tyranny — but it opens with a key we already hold in our pocket. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, the Supreme Court commands no armies, nor does it hold purse strings. It derives its power from the legitimacy we voluntarily bestow upon it. Such legitimacy can be withdrawn when the power is misused. The sensible response to such egregious rulings would be to ignore them. Until our democracy can adequately check judicial power or abolish the court, the executive branch should engage in a type of political disobedience by refusing to enforce unjust opinions.

his isn’t far-fetched — we almost reached this panicked point a few months ago. Back in April, a Trump-appointed district judge in Texas sided with anti-abortion groups and restricted mifepristone, an FDA-approved medication that has helped millions safely end their pregnancies. Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, 

, calling on the FDA and the Biden administration to “ignore this ruling” and for pharmacies and doctors to “go about their jobs like nothing has changed.” He wasn’t alone: Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York 

, telling CNN that Biden “should ignore” this judicial overreach, adding that the ruling “relies on enforcement, and it is up to the Biden administration to choose whether or not to enforce such a ruling.” Even Nancy Mace, a South Carolina Republican, declared her support for the Biden administration “ignoring [the ruling] at this point” and said it “should just be thrown out, quite frankly.” Luckily the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the lower court’s order to halt distribution, keeping mifepristone available for now. But what if it hadn’t? What if these conservative legal attempts succeed 

? What innovative political or legal responses are ready to go to keep health care accessible? What organized base — and who in Washington — would push the Biden administration to take such a necessary step?

When the Supreme Court struck down abortion rights, Biden’s response was a tepid whisper — and a delayed one at that. With nearly two months’ advance notice due to a leaked opinion, he had ample time to prepare action. Instead he 

 and stopped short of bolder proposals like declaring a 

. But this type of movement demand is possible. A year later, Biden’s response to unfavorable court rulings was different, announcing a second attempt at delivering student debt relief hours after the Biden v. Nebraska decision. What was the difference? Pressure from the left demanded a response in line with popular constitutionalism by calling for debt relief no matter how the court ruled. Now imagine what increased pressure and a larger movement critical of the court could do the next time it oversteps its authority.

A majority of the justices on the Supreme Court seem eager to curtail civil rights for anyone not white, male, and worth billions. To counter it, we need an executive branch willing to fight for all of us and put a check on the court’s unjust rulings by refusing to cede the power that enables its reign. This type of political disobedience isn’t unprecedented. In 1862, in direct violation of the majority decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford finding that enslaved people were not citizens, President Abraham Lincoln signed a proclamation banning slavery in all states in rebellion. He then went further, launching an 

 on the fundamental power of the Supreme Court to determine the law — and rightfully so.

Interviewing Ocasio-Cortez on CNN, Anderson Cooper shot back at the idea of ignoring the court: “Do we want to live in a world where a government can decide to ignore a federal court ruling?” That world already exists and has historically been used for evil more often than not. After Brown v. Board of Education, Virginia’s Prince Edward County 

 to obey the court order to racially integrate and instead 

 its entire public school system for half a decade. It’s a long tradition: When Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that President Andrew Jackson’s racist Georgia license laws against the Cherokee Nation were unconstitutional in Worcester v. Georgia, Jackson went ahead with the forced displacement of Native Americans from Georgia and other states that became the Trail of Tears, mocking Marshall’s lack of enforcement power. Sadly, it takes little imagination to consider a President Trump or DeSantis defying a hypothetical liberal-packed Supreme Court. If we demand it, the other side of that coin can be a safeguarded republic that affirms civil rights, upholds democracy, and isn’t stymied by nine people in robes.

There is already precedent for ignoring the court, and white supremacists are mostly the ones who have set it. Now it’s time that the folks actually fighting for justice create some new precedents for good and necessary trouble.

Hammer&Hope

Braxton Brewington

@Braxtonbrew96

Contributions

Issue

5

Black Men Need Abolition, Not Kamala Harris’s Opportunity Agenda

Issue

2

The Supreme Court Shouldn’t Get the Last Word

FREE
TO READ

SIGN UP
TODAY

Braxton Brewington

@Braxtonbrew96

Contributions

Issue

5

Black Men Need Abolition, Not Kamala Harris’s Opportunity Agenda

Issue

2

The Supreme Court Shouldn’t Get the Last Word

FREE TO READ

SIGN UP TODAY

FREE
TO READ

SIGN UP
TODAY