Supreme Court to decide whether states must gerrymander districts to elect more minorities to congress

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving "congressional redistricting."  The case involves whether states can be forced by law to draw bizarrely-shaped congressional districts solely to ensure some districts will have a majority of black voters.  

The case has huge implications so unless you're a moron you should probably understand what's at stake.  Let me explain:

Starting around 1960 Democrats started bleating dat it "just wuzn't FAIR" that in a handful of states where blacks were a third of the population, less than a third of that state's congress-critters were black.

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just one-third of the population being black, most of the time the person elected to congress wouldn't be black.

Y'know, that "democracy" the Dems constantly bleat about.  "Majority rules," eh?

And of course the then-majority-liberal Supreme Court and the "woke" Media hated that "democratic" result!  Somehow this just wudn't FAIR!  But how could it be unfair in a democracy, eh?  Here's why:

Everyone knew blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though it's less one-sided now).  So congressional Democrats knew if they could force states to re-draw district boundaries in weird patterns to create majority-black districts, they'd win more seats in the House.  So a Dem-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the stated goal of eliminating what the Democrats claimed were "barriers to voting."

Hey, who could object to that, eh?

But the unstated purpose of the act was to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries to create majority-black districts, which obviously helps elect blacks to congress.  And as of today there are 120 such majority-minority congressional districts.

So the Voting Rights Act ordered--in effect--"If a state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in that state, the courts (Democrat controlled) will assume that's because the state legislature deliberately drew the boundaries of congressional districts to "dilute the voting power of minorities!"

And if state legislatures had deliberately done that, I agree. 

But other than the long-since-repealed "poll tax," no such evidence has ever been found.  Ever.  Instead, a moment's thought will show that in a state in which blacks were a third of the population, randomly-drawn district boundaries--like big squares--would almost always have more whites than blacks, reflecting the percentage of the population in the entire state.  Not a plot.   

Of course Democrats claim "maff beez raaacis'," and since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats in congress invented a new legal theory: "disparate results" (a variation of "disparate impact")  As the name implies, this theory claims that if one racial group has a different result in anything, the gruberment and the courts would automatically assume that result was due to raaaaacism--even if there was absolutely no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you probably didn't get it.

For the slow-witted, it's like the courts adopting the policy that all men are rapists.  "We don't need no stinkin' evidence!  Ouah policy sez yew iz guilty!"  Wow.

Seriously.  If you don't believe me, Google it.  Here's the bribem DOJ's policy:

The essence of a "discriminatory results" claim alleging "vote dilution" is that a certain state law, practice, or structure interacts with social and historical conditions to [produce] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by minority voters to elect their preferred representatives."

This is carefully disguised horseshit, Orwellian in cloaking the real meaning, which is: "If any state has a lower percentage of black congress-critters than the percentage of blacks in that state's population, the courts will automatically assume their rights were violated."

Oh, I hear some of my Dem friends saying this is a lie, that no prezzy would evah sign such a piece of shit bill into law.  Really? Here's AI's summary:

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting practices and procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group,
  The core of Section 2 is the "results test," established by Congress in 1982, which prohibits any voting practice that results in a discriminatory effect, regardless of whether a discriminatory intent can be proven.

If you didn't grasp that last phrase, read it again.  Believing me yet? 

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control everything.  Literally, anyone who criticized the regime was declared insane.  You wouldn't think a law could possibly be passed--and upheld by the Supreme Court (in 1980)--with that sort of illogic.  And yet it happened here.

More AI propaganda:

Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2:
    A violation is established [boom!] if, based on the "totality of the circumstances," a voting practice is shown to provide minority voters with less opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.

That last line is utter horseshit: they have an equal opportunity to "participate in the political process and elect reps of their choice."  But being in the minority, it should come as no surprise that with randomly-drawn districts they'd have fewer reps than their percentage of the population. 

"Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  That's when any "electoral practice" minimizes the voting strength of minority groups.  Common forms of vote dilution include:

•  "Cracking"-- splitting a minority community among multiple districts to prevent them from forming a voting majority in any single district.
•  "Packing"-- concentrating minority voters into a small number of districts to minimize their influence in other areas.

Wait, you cunning sons of whores...those two things are opposites: the first one DECREES that splitting minority voters into different districts is illegal, while the second bitches that drawing district boundaries to "concentrate minority voters into a small number of districts" is illegal.  But of course that's exactly what the then-Dem-majority Supreme Court ORDERED! 

Wait...I thought Democrats constantly screamed about "ouah precious democracy," which means majority rules.  But when the Court ORDERED states to draw gerrymandered district boundaries to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters would be elected, that was just peachy, eh?  I understand the desire and theory, but that totally, utterly conflicts with "democracy"!

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  Either you believe in majority rule, or you don't.  But of course they want it both ways: "We luuuvs majority-rule...but yew mus' draw new districts to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that deliberately disfavors the white majority, but that's just fine with Democrats, cuz it increases their power in congress.  Got it.

And sure enough, back when the Supreme Court had a liberal majority it ordered states to re-draw congressional districts to create districts with a majority of black voters.  This was so well known that it got a name: "majority-minority districts."  Here's what AI says about that:

"AI Overview:
    A majority-minority district is a [congressional] district...where a racial minority group is a majority of the population.  This is intended to prevent the dilution of minority voting power and to give minority groups an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.  The creation of these districts is governed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

That next-to-last sentence is a cunning, deliberate lie: Minorities had (and have) an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidates.  But with randomly-drawn districts, black candidates don't win as often because...wait for it..."ouah precious democracy," eh?

Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe Democrat congress-whores would be so hypocritical as to bleat dat dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that to win more power for themselves.  (Actually that's not at all hard to believe.)  Second--and harder to believe: you can't believe the fucking Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.  And yet it did.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled everything back then, they got their way.  They screamed that drawing districts blindly was "vote dilution."  The case was Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and the majority-liberal Supreme Court RULED that minority plaintiffs would win if they could show:

•  The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically concentrated to constitute a majority in a single-member district.
•  The minority group tends to vote similarly.
•  The majority group votes as a bloc to consistently defeat the minority group's preferred candidates.

The hypocrisy and internal contradiction couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit.  Then the court continues: When the "minority group" "tends to vote similarly" that's peachy, but when the "majority group votes as a bloc" that's awful, terrible, anti-democratic!

Starting to see the Orwellian, communist horseshit here yet?

And we're just getting started, cupcake.  The court also cited Section 2 as addressing "practices that directly make it harder for minorities to vote," like having to prove your identity with a photo ID, or "restrictions on absentee voting that disproportionately affect minority voters."  That shit is so vague that any attorney could make the case--even with such absurd arguments as "Some of my clients might possibly not read well enough to understand written instructions for submitting absentee ballots, like having witness signatures.  So states mus' not reject their ballots jus' cuz dey may not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended VRA established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors never shown in the instant case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, racially polarized voting, and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

First, "racially polarized voting" was absolutely fine--as long as the race doing the "polarized voting" was a minority.  "Racially polarized voting" was only bad if white voters tended to vote for white candidates. 

Next: For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for, say, rape has been convicted of that same crime a dozen times before, prosecutors aren't allowed to mention that in court because it might bias jurors to assume he's guilty regardless of the evidence in the current case.  It's a well-known principle.  But the Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to imply current discrimination even if no evidence exists.  Hmmm...  Double-standard much?

The contradictions in the VRA are so glaring and numerous that some legal experts predict the Supreme Court will overturn Section 2.  I doubt the court will do that, but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the current DOJ website says about Section 2:

"In 1980 the Supreme Court held that Section 2, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, [required] a plaintiff to prove that the standard, practice, or procedure was enacted or maintained, at least in part, by an invidious purpose.
  But in 1982 Congress amended Section 2 so a plaintiff could claim a violation of the [law] if the evidence established that, in the context of the "totality of the circumstance of the local electoral process," the practice being challenged had the result of denying a racial minority an equal opportunity to participate in the political process.

What that says--though cunningly, deliberately disguised to avoid outraging normal Americans--is that groups suing states, claiming racial discrimination (but only against the minority) didn't need to prove any intent.  Instead the test was now "if it had the *result* of denying..."  In other words, showing a disparate result was all that was needed for the courts to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks.

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress was seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law in their eagerness to atone.  And after congress amended the original VRA, the Supreme Court back then held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  At that point the "professional victim industry" saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

And recall that many of the cases were settled, with big paydays for  the plaintiffs' attorneys.  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?