In 1982 a federal law (and leftist judges) not only made gerrymandering legal, but *required* it

In a few weeks the Supreme Court is expected to rule on a case involving congressional redistricting.  The question is whether states can be forced by leftist judges--interpreting a 1982 law--to draw bizarrely-shaped congressional districts solely to ensure some districts will have a  majority of black voters.  Alternatively, can states be sued for re-drawing those bizarre, narrow, wandering borders to undo the effect just described?

The case has huge implications, and if you care about those, you need to 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 the state's congress-creeps were black.  (I use "congress-creeps" for all members of that useless body.)

Of course if the boundaries of congressional districts were drawn "blindly," simply ensuring that each district had the same population, without trying to favor or disfavor any race, it wouldn't be surprising that with just a 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," right?

Democrats and the "woke" Media absolutely hate that totally democratic result!  And in the past, the Supreme Court sided with them.  It just wudn't FAIR that minorities didn't have "their own districts"!  

It was well known that blacks voted Democrat by huge margins--like 90% or so (though closer to 70-30 now).  So Dems in congress realized that 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 Democrat-controlled congress passed the "Voting Rights Act," which had the stated goal of "eliminating barriers to voting."

Hey, no one could object to that, eh?

But as the Democrats planned, leftist judges used that law to force states to re-draw congressional district boundaries in amazingly tortured shapes, specifically to create majority-black congressional districts.

So given the cover of the Narrative of "eliminating barriers to voting" in the Voting Rights Act, leftist judges said--in effect--that if a state didn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as the percentage of blacks in the population, the courts would consider that "diluting the voting power of minorities" even if no evidence of intent was shown.

And indeed, no such evidence was ever found.  Ever.  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, eh?   

So since no one could find any evidence that district boundaries had been drawn with malice (see previous paragraph), Democrats 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 the "disparate results" were due to raaaaacism--even if there was no evidence of discriminatory intent!

That's so Orwellian--so crazy--that you may have missed it.

Imagine the courts adopting the legal theory that all men are rapists, who must then prove their innocence.  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 baffle-gab, designed to hide the real meaning, which is: "If your state doesn't have the same percentage of black congress-critters as their percentage of the population, the DOJ and courts will automatically assume it's due to "vote dilution" and thus violates the Voting Rights Act.

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?   And the courts have been exploiting that actual LAW since 1982!

This is literally how the communists wrote laws, so they could control all the results.  You wouldn't think it could possibly happen here, eh?  Yet not only DID it happen here, this has been the LAW--aggressively enforced by leftist judges--for 43 years!

More AI summary--not mine:

Key provisions and legal standards of Section 2
     A violation is established [!] 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.
    "Vote dilution" is a key focus of Section 2.  It involves any electoral practice that minimizes the voting strength of racial or language 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 rat-bastards...those two things are opposites: 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! 

Note also that despite the law sternly claiming "packing" was a violation, that's exactly what Democrat legislatures did, using Section 2 to allow them to draw bizarre, wandering boundaries explicitly to produce "majority-minority" districts to ensure more black congress-critters (voting Democrat) would be elected.  This was the entire reason for the weirdly-drawn boundaries.

So which is it, lying, cunning Democrats?  Pick one.  You claim to believe in majority rule, but forced state legislatures to draw weird district boundaries to create majority-black districts."  Of course doing that deliberately disfavored the white majority in the entire state, but that's just fine with you cuz it gives the Democrat party more power.  Wow! 

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.  [The 1982 amendments.]

Believin' me yet?  No, you're probably not, for two reasons:  First, you literally can't believe the Democrats would be so hypocritical as to bleat that dey luuuvs democracy, but then junk that theory 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 Supreme Court would actually rule that this piece of shit LAW--rammed thru by Democrats--was constitutional.

Anti-democratic as hell, but because Dems wanted this result, and controlled everything, 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.

It couldn't possibly be more clear: First, ALL congressional districts are "single-member," so that's just camouflage; horseshit; misdirection.  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 Supreme Court also cites 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 some voters might not understand duh requirements!"

See how infinitely flexible "disparate results" arguments are?  

And again, we're just getting started:  the amended law established a test called "Totality of circumstances," which allowed the courts to consider factors even if not shown in a given case, such as "a history of official voting discrimination, racially polarized voting, and "the lingering effects of past discrimination that hinder political participation." 

And note again that "racially polarized voting" was totally fine when done by minorities, just objectionable if done by the white majority.  Hmmm...

For those unfamiliar with U.S. law: If a defendant on trial for selling illegal drugs 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.  Well-known principle.  But Section 2 of the amended Voting Rights Act, rammed thru by Dems in congress--allowed plaintiffs to use a history of past discrimination to be used to show a violation of the law.  Hmmm...

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, because it would trigger a firestorm of outrage by blacks and Democrat--pouring yet more fuel on the fires of current Dem outrage--but what do I know, eh?

Here's what the DOJ website--which hasn't changed after the Dem loss--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 [Voting Rights Act] 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 leftist judges to order a state to gerrymander a district to favor blacks..

To summarize:  Back in the 1980s the Media and courts and congress were seized by "white guilt"--the beginnings of the wokie mania--and in their eagerness to atone, they junked longstanding pillars of U.S. law.  The then-majority-Democrat Supreme Court held that states would be deemed to violate the Act if there was a "disparate result."  And the Democrats saw their opportunity and ran with it. 

Even more faaaabulous for Democrat plaintiffs, many of these cases were settled with states being forced to pay Democrat attorneys millions in "legal fees."  Wow, who could have predicted that, eh?