The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.Imagine the reaction if the sleeping Justice was not one of the most extreme leftists on the bench.
Among other disputes, the Court was considering the dispute over the 2003 Texas redistricting that corrected the balance of the Texas congressional delegation:
Before the 2003 redistricting, Texas, with every branch and statewide office controlled by Republicans, still sent a majority-Democrat delegation to Congress.
The Texas boundaries were changed in 2003 after Republicans took control of both houses of the state Legislature. DeLay had helped GOP legislative candidates in 2002, and was a key player in getting the new map that benefited him and other Republican incumbents.
Afterward, R. Ted Cruz, the Texas solicitor general, repeated his courtroom arguments that Republicans were only replacing boundaries had been drawn to benefit Democrats and that did not reflect the Republican-leaning state.
"This map on any measure of fairness accurately reflects the way Texans are voting at the polls right now," he said.
"The only reason it was considered, let alone passed, was to help one political party get more seats than another," the justices were told by Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who represents several groups challenging the plan.
"That's a surprise," Justice Antonin Scalia joked. "Legislatures redraw the map all the time for political reasons."
The 32-member Texas delegation includes six Hispanics and three blacks - an increase of one black congressman from before the 2003 map was put in place.Finally, it is important to note that there is no Constitutional provision addressing redistricting. There is, in fact, no provision for districts.
Technorati Tags: Constitution, Supreme Court, Texas