Texas partisans in the (hardly) non-partisan Supreme Court

An MSNBC story, "DeLay’s Texas redistricting heads to high court", reports on the continuing challenge to the 2003 Republican redistricting. I guess it's a good thing to pursue this, but I won't hold my breath.

Paul M. Smith, a Washington attorney representing challengers to the Texas map, told justices that the redoing of maps "is a symptom of the excessively partisan approach to redistricting now in vogue."

Oh, and the Supreme Court is now non-partisan?

"When legislators choose to take such actions, they should be required to demonstrate some legitimate governmental purpose," he wrote in a filing.

"Legitimate"? Well sure. What's more legitimate than ensuring your reelection and the advancement of your party's electoral interests?

There is no war against Christmas. (Unless the religious right's blessing of the radical commercialization of the holiday, utterly subverting its meaning, counts.) The real war is against secular, representative democracy. This story represents the warfront of representative democracy.