The Supreme Court today refused to strike down California’s new gerrymandered congressional map designed to give Democrats five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and turned down a request from a group of California Republicans that would have required the state to continue to use the map in place while their judicial challenge to the map proceeded. If anyone dissented on the Court, he, she or they kept it to themselves.
This is called “following precedent.”
Two months ago the conservative bloc on the Court, over dissents from the Three Little Maids of Kneejerk Progressivism, granted a request from Texas to allow it to use its new map intended to allow Republicans to pick up five additional House seats in that state. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, a lower court had sided with Democratic challengers that the “legislature’s motive was predominantly racial,” making the redistricting unconstitutional. (Once again, crying racism was the Left’s default claim.)The majority reversed that ruling in its December 4 order. Justice Alito issued an opinion (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorusch) explaining that “it is indisputable … that the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map…was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
The Republicans who challenged the California map were counting on a lack of integrity from the conservative majority although the issue was exactly the same as in the Texas case. But the six conservative, Republican-appointed Justices declined the bait. They ruled for the Democrats just as they had ruled for the Texas Republicans, which was the legal, ethical, fair and objective result. Even those conservative devils Thomas and Alito!
Another false partisan narrative bites the dust.
If the three Democratic women possessed similar integrity, they would have dissented in this case too, as they had in Abbott. But they didn’t, did they?With their votes, they showed that their principles only hold when their favorite party benefits from them.
They are the hacks.
Unmasked at last.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m confused; the idea that the gerrymandering was purely for partisan advantage was the justification for allowing the gerrymandering to stand? I thought that was the whole point of gerrymandering in the first place. Is gerrymandering allowed as long as it’s not “racially motivated”?
There’s nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a partisan legislature rigging districts to benefit its party, as long as the “one man, one vote” principle isn’t breached. Racial gerrymandering is what brought the courts into the process long ago. A lot of the court reversals of redistricting were also nakedly partisan.
The Super Bowl, the World Series, the Fourth of July celebrations, the Academy Awards, Memorial Day, Lincoln’s birthday, the Bicentennial, Presidential inaugurations until the Democrats decided to be assholes about them, moon landings. Is it the term cultural that is confusing you? A culture is how any country, city, group, club, state, organization, sports team or tree house decides what its values are and what it honors as well as what it reviles. The narrow meaning of culture to cover the arts is another definition, as in “pop culture.”