Jun 28 2006
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas redistricting issue shows two things: the court is closer to general conservative and American values; the court is still not quite there yet. The good news is a state’s right to organize itself has been re-affirmed:
The Supreme Court upheld most of Texas’s Republican-drafted 2003 congressional redistricting plan yesterday in a ruling that could prompt majority parties in other states to redraw political maps to their advantage.
The problem is the court still established racism as a controlling factor over Americanism. Minorities who wish to be treated as equals need to want to be treated as equals. But this is not the case it seems. This part of the ruling just doesn’t make any sense to the vision expoused by the great Dr. Martin Luther King:
By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that a sprawling West Texas district represented by Henry Bonilla (R) violates the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voting power of Latinos.
Is it the state of Texas or the state of Latino-Texans? Is it the United States of America or is there one America set aside for the purely unscientific and arbitrary definition of a minority (at the genetic level there is not a clean and clear difference among the races which meld from one population to another)? Is the court saying their needs to be a Latino-America? Why does a group get special treatment due to biological genes and another group doesn’t? Not to mention the fact ‘Latino’ is not as much a race as much as a culture, which competes with the “American” culture (which is inclusive of all races, creeds and cultures).
The result is clear. Rights based on some arbitrary grouping of Americans into subset groupings needs to be eliminated since these are unconstitutional on their face. Being in the minority is a natural occurance in democracies. Duh! When did that become un-democratic?