Toiletnation, USA

Home » Uncategorized » Gerrymandering Now, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever!

Gerrymandering Now, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever!

LBJ’s Voting Rights Act is being discussed by the Supreme Court. In case you don’t know much about it, the Voting Rights Act is basically a law that is designed to right historical wrongs against the voting rights of minorities–and that means blacks.

Right now, the Mainstream Left is all in a tizzy because Antonin Scalia–an Italian Catholic from New Jersey and not a Neo-Confederate like you might think–opined during legal arguments that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, if it is enacted in perpetuity, basically amounts to a “racial entitlement.” Rachel Maddow was so upset at this that her ovaries actually squeezed out 2.5 mg of estrogen in protest.

Funny thing about the Left. They get mad about things, tell you they’re mad about them and then, when you ask them to explain their ire, they just repeat that they’re upset. At most, you’ll get a few buzzwords: “racism,” “homophobia,” “Islamophobia.” And so on. What annoys the Left about all of this–and the 50-50 chance that the SCOTUS will actually strike down part of the VRA65–is that white people might have a slight bit of pressure let off of their collective neck for a second.

Back story boils down to this:

Shelby County, Alabama is suing the Justice Department to be freed from the requirements of “preclearance.” Under the Voting Rights Act, any time a jurisdiction in a former Confederate state (mostly) wants to change any kind of law pertaining to voting, the minutiae of the change has to be analyzed and cleared by the Justice Department, regardless of what the voters of the area think. The Federal Machine assumes the South is so addicted to “racism” that the political urine of the South has to be regularly screened to ensure there has been no remission. Truly, it’s vestigial Reconstruction.

So…if the state of Alabama wants to implement a law that says a voter has to present proof of having an IQ above 90, the jurisdiction in question has to show that the law–regardless of intent–won’t have a “disproportionate impact” on minorities. If the Justice Department can argue–regardless of actual evidence–that the law MIGHT impact racial group X or racial group Y in such a way as to keep them from voting, the state can be legally told “no” by the Department of Justice. Just like that, a entire state can be smacked down by a few DC lawyers.

In the course of the oral arguments, Scalia points out that this sort of “unequal treatment” of select states for the rest of American history is probably of questionable Constitutionality, but that the “hot potato” nature of such racial politics in Toiletnation makes it extremely unlikely that the Section 5/Preclearance measures of the Voting Rights Act can be undone through politics. The Courts, Scalia blithely and spot-on correctly opines (see page 47) will have to undo it, as it has come to be seen as a “racial entitlement” that no politician at the national level will be able to surmount. By this he means specifically that every ethnic and racial group that can convince a roomful of liberal lunkheads that its members have been downtrodden seems to be able to demand a gerrymandered “for us by us” voting district.

Take a look at how Louisiana’s fourth district, once represented by crooked New Orleans lawyer and bribe-stasher Cleo Fields, looked a few years back:


See all that yellow? That’s a black district. It’s probably 400 miles long and incredibly expensive to manage, politically. It borders both New Iberia and Shreveport, which, to anyone who has ever lived in Louisiana, is crazy. But it is drawn the way it is to ensure that the majority of voters in it are black. It doesn’t look like this anymore, but the fact that it once did is thanks to the Voting Rights Act. This guaranteed that, at all times, at least one Representative from Louisiana was a Black Democrat. Such a guarantee, Scalia was postulating, amounts to an un-Constitutional entitlement that no Senator will have the balls to fix .

Scalia said this:

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly  confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.”

“It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.” (Note: He makes special note of Virgina because many Virginia counties are outside of the special, limited jurisdiction of the VRA65).

Scalia was simply pointing out the way the efforts to “fix” history by enacting these sorts of laws become so sensitive that they are guaranteed to exist forever and that our politics and political system are so poisoned by race that they reach a point where the cure becomes the disease.

But, since the new disease is one that only sickens and kills the interests of White people, liberals don’t mind the tumor one bit.

And so Scalia was hinting, though not in so many words:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: