Texas redistricting

(update: perhaps i've overreacted. this decision is being hailed as a mild republican victory. but some of the language used in the article still strikes me as worthy of ridicule.)

AP via Yahoo:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the pro-Republican Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and freed all states to draw new political boundaries as often as they want.

The court, however, said that part of the new Texas map failed to protect minority voting rights, a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democrats from office.

In other words, the Supreme Court strengthened the Democrats' 140-year-old unconstitutional power grab by aiding the reconquistadorks' unconstitutional power grab.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing in south and west Texas under the state's plan.

So now the gringos will not "have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing in south and west Texas under the state's plan". That sounds fair...

The plan's "troubling blend of politics and race — and the resulting vote dilution of a group that was beginning to achieve (the federal law's) goal of overcoming prior electoral discrimination — cannot be sustained," Kennedy wrote.

1) As opposed to the "troubling blend of politics and race" that is the Democrats' stock and trade?

2) Discrimination and blending of politics and race cannot and should not be sustained, so why is Kennedy blending politics and race by discriminating between voters?

Justice Antonin Scalia complained that the court should have shut the door on all claims of political gerrymandering in map drawing. (However,) Justice John Paul Stevens took the opposite view.

"By taking an action for the sole purpose of advantaging Republicans and disadvantaging Democrats, the state of Texas violated its constitutional obligation to govern impartially," he wrote.

So? By always acting for the sole purpose of advantaging Democrats and disadvantaging Republicans, the DNC violates its self-claimed obligation to govern impartially.

Welcome to the real world, Mr. Stevens.

See also: By always acting for the sole purpose of advantaging Democrats and disadvantaging Republicans, the MSM violates its self-claimed obligation to report impartially.

By always acting for the sole purpose of advantaging union (mob) bosses and disadvantaging industry, unions violate their obligation to help workers.

By always acting for the sole purpose of advantaging Islam and disadvantaging "infidels", Islam violates its moral . . . well, everything.

"The League of United Latin American Citizens is prepared to go to court next week to present its redistricting plan to the district court", president Hector Flores said at the group's annual convention in Milwaukee. "The decision was a victory for all underrepresented groups and gives hope that the face of Congress will change in the midterm elections", Flores said at a news conference.

It's not a "victory for all underrepresented groups" if it creates a new "underrepresented group" in the process.