Like, what is the originalist justification for the Supreme Court to say, "this sort of evidence isn't enough to prove intent"? I would've thought that should be up to a fact-finder to decide, not an appellate court. And normally Congress does have the power to set what standards of evidence apply to what cases, would they have the ability to do so here, or is the Supreme Court's declaration that evidence of discriminatory effects are not evidence of discriminatory intent somehow baked into the 14th amendment? If so, what is the originalist reasoning for that?