Only when six people say it is:
'This court's stay, this court's decision today guarantees that Texas's new map, with all its enhanced partisan advantage, will govern next year's elections for the House of Representatives. That result, as this Court has pronounced year in and year out, is a violation of the Constitution.'Violation of the Constitution is such a harsh term when there are ambiguities present:
Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors. First, the District Court failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature. Contra, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024).Texas said the districts were redrawn based on race. Then realized that wasn’t so good, so argued in court that they didn’t really mean that. Which apparently created an ambiguity sufficient for the majority to decide the case without further ado, like, you know, full briefings and oral arguments.
Because white people deserve the presumption of good faith; especially when non-white people are getting screwed. The Constitution is color blind, after all. And the solution to unconstitutional racial discrimination, is to not discriminate. Against white people. Says the white court with 1 Uncle Tom.
Do I sound disgusted? If I don’t, or it’s ambiguous, I’m not doing it right.
No comments:
Post a Comment