The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

We know how dependent liberal opinion has been on the courts to come through for its causes and politics whenever voters will not. A sign of its current desperation are reactions to news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the DeLay-led remapping of Texas's congressional districts in 2003. The justice to watch, according to the New York Times, is Anthony Kennedy, who in an earlier case left open the possibility he'd be open to more precise arguments about constitutional violations in such highly charged partisan disputes.

One likely argument is that redistricting weakened minority voting power. One set of plaintiffs is pointing to the 2003 redrawing being based on the 2000 census, which they see as a violation of one-man, one-vote. Here's where the Washington Post report has a Freudian slip moment:

"The plaintiffs said [redistricting officials] made no effort to update that data to reflect more than 1 million new people -- predominantly Latinos -- who had entered the state between 2000 and 2003."

Entered the state? As in illegal immigration? And the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to rule in the Democratic Party's favor on the basis of unlawful residents who now (evidently) represent a core constituency of that party?

Another insulting absurdity has to do with Republican Rep. Henry Bonilla's district, where plaintiffs opposed to Bonilla argue Latino votes were weakened by a rejiggering that brought in more white voters. But wasn't the purpose of creating minority-safe districts (a thoroughly unconstitutional practice, lest we forget) the election of minority candidates? If a minority candidate has to be a Democrat to qualify, we might as well toss what's left of the Constitution into the Rio Grande.

topics:
Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Immigration