Progressives (unreasonably liberal Democrats) are having a freak-out over the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, where the Court (6-3) ruled that a map creating a second “majority-minority” district was racially discriminatory. A key finding was that the motive was primarily racial justice (or someone’s idea of racial justice). The government can only specifically use race as a factor if the congressional district:
1. Addresses a specific, measurable harm; and
2. is not otherwise discriminatory in intent.
Failing that, “strict scrutiny” under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment is triggered, and there are only a couple scenarios where government action could be justified, neither of which were present here.
I want to add in a couple things I know/believe that can shed further light on the majority opinion:
1. Most analysts do not believe Black majorities are required to elect Black candidates. I learned in college that a critical mass of about 30 percent will do it. I was in college before Barack Obama became a state senator, US Senator, and two-term President of the United States. Would you say that number is higher or lower than it was in 2003?
2. Progressives could stand to re-consider any policy that mimics what actual provable racists did to dilute Black voting power.
Justice Alito also noted that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended by Congress, is unclear in its language, with respect to opportunity versus outcome. Progressives of course reject equality in favor of outcome, so their influence probably doomed the amended Voting Rights Act from the outset.
Finally, Deacon Steven Greydanus should be ashamed. No Catholic cleric should be so nakedly partisan. You’re fortunate I’m only hearing it second-hand. Because I can call a Bishop.
Comments