[Texas Fossil]

This article conveys the essence of the Supreme Courts reversal of the 3 judge panel's decision to redraw the Texas reapportionment maps. But is softens the criticism of the court concerning the 3 judge panels actual maps.

I suggest you read the actual judgement from the court.

here

SupremeCourtDecision 11-713

This article did point out that there were 3 related cases involved.

[kindred]

This article conveys the fact that liberal judicial activism is alive and well and that the judicial authority is trying to extend its authority over the Congress, whose job it is to make these maps. They have a right to determine its constitutional muster only, they have not right to redesign the Congressinal maps.

[Clintonfatigued]

Finally we won one. The Democrat-appointed lower court really overstepped their bounds.

[Monorprise]

New York Times wrote: “The constitutionality of Section 5 itself was not at issue in the case, but the opinion said its “intrusion on state sovereignty” raises “serious constitutional questions,” quoting in part from a 2009 decision.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas went further, repeating his view that “Section 5 is unconstitutional.” “

The issues of state sovereignty is almost insignificant in principle compared to the non-uniformity & discrimination of that act among the States.

For the Federal Goverment to make a law that only applies with burdens upon some states and not others is to lower the rank of those States & their people to a 2nd class status below others. Thus robing them of their “Equal Footing” and violating the uniformity clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If we are to be subject to a boundless(lawless) Federal Goverment, let us at least pretend that this goverment rules all States as equals.

It is Ironic in that section 5 inherently violates the very printable it was supposedly created to enforce equality among men. An irony lost in its consistency in that regard with the other acts passed & signed by the same corrupt men.