BWHAAAA? Alito against "1 person 1 vote"?

Nathan Newman has a post on his site about the revelations about supreme court nominee Samuel Alito's past views. His stance against has garnered lots of media attention, but he has another view that's even more disturbing.

It's about a little-known law concept called "reapportionment." I'll let Nathan explain:

"For the non-lawyers out there, Alito meant he was against the Supreme Court decisions requiring that all state legislative districts be designed to guarantee "one person, one vote", instead of giving some districts with very few voters the same representation as urban districts with far more voters.
...
You can be against judicial action to override the democratic will of the people -- as I am -- and still recognize that where legislatures cease to reflect that will, courts have a reasonable role in stopping elite minorities from manipulating voting rules to establish a tyranny over the majority.

But Alito's supposed deference to the elected branches isn't about deference to democracy, but deference to the racist power of states in our history to oppress majority power-- which is what makes his professed hostility to affirmative action and federal power and his decisions against plaintiffs making claims of discrimination even more disturbing."

Samuel Alito: one of the greatest minds of the 18th century.