Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on June 28, 2006, 08:13:28 PM
-
The SCOTUS has become a Republican tool.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld almost all of a bitterly contested Texas congressional map engineered by then-Rep. Tom DeLay to help solidify Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
The high court by a 7-2 vote refused to overturn the entire map and rejected the argument that it involved an illegal partisan drawing of boundaries of voting districts.
"We reject the statewide challenge to Texas' redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander and the challenge to the redistricting in the Dallas area as a violation of the Voting Rights Act," Justice Anthony Kennedy said for the court majority.
Only one district violated the federal voting rights law and must be redrawn, he said.
Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer voted to strike down the entire plan. Stevens said it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because the sole motivation was a desire to minimize the strength of Texas Democrats.
Julian Zelizer, a Boston University professor and expert on U.S. politics, called it a "huge decision" by the justices that "made it easier for parties to protect themselves."
Other experts said the ruling gave states more discretion to do mid-decade redistricting. Traditionally, states redraw their congressional boundaries once at the start of the decade, just after the national Census.
J. Gerald Hebert, a lawyer for the Texas Democratic challengers, said, "The decision could open the floodgates for partisan redistricting."
Mary Wilson, president of the League of Women Voters, said "We now can expect an even more vicious battle between the political parties as they redraw district lines every two years for partisan gain."
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the court's newest members who were appointed by President George W.) Bush, voted to uphold the entire plan.
Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry called the ruling a "clear victory."
So now the name of the game is who can outgerrymander the other best.
-
Bastards.
culero
-
Does this mean our Democrats are going back to New Mexico? If so, the IQ of both states is likely to go up.
-Sik
-
:D
Is good to be da King!
I remember one of the vomiting heads on election night no 2 for bush saying "well there goes the supreme court"
well, Ya :cool:
-
Ford, Reagan, Reagan, GHW Bush, GHWBush, Clinton, Clinton, GWBush, GWBush.
7-2, Stevens (Ford) and Breyer (Clinton) dissenting.
-
Keep cheering Yeager. The democrats will have Washington state for a long, long time now. The SCOTUS just screwed you, too.
-
lol, gerrymandering has been going on for over a century... just part of the spoils for the winner.
When the Dem's win again, they'll do the same thing. Count on it. It's politics.
-
as long as they uphold the 2nd amendment as an individual right I dont really worry about the other stuff.
Things will tilt back towards the liberals, then after a time, things will shift back.
On and on it goes, back and fourth....Its like tidal pools man, be glad for the moon :D
-
Where do you think Cynthia McKinney came from? Her district looks like the Nile river
-
Back and forth, yeah right. The fat kid has just sat on your teeter totter and he ain't getting up for a long time.
-
I was talking in a metaphorical sense......
Im not too "up" on Texas politics but the feeling I get is that the politics in Texas are unlike the politics of just about any other state....that is to say, unconventional.
Best regards, keep on voting.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
as long as they uphold the 2nd amendment as an individual right I dont really worry about the other stuff.
Things will tilt back towards the liberals, then after a time, things will shift back.
On and on it goes, back and fourth....Its like tidal pools man, be glad for the moon :D
there ya go
-
Does dismantling a district that is 21% black but regularly elects a white candidate whom the black community endorses violate Section 2 of the VRA? Based on the argument, the Court seems likely to reject that claim; indeed, I would be surprised if it received more than a couple of Justices endorsed this view. Since the 1990s, the Court has rejected the views of the career staff in the Voting Right Section in many cases, and I expect that to be so again here. But the particular way the Court rejects the claim could have great importance. It might do on a narrow basis closely tied to the particular facts of Texas. Or it might do so on the basis of principles that have implications for other claims of this general sort. The way the Court resolves this issue could also have implications for the current debates in Congress about renewing the VRA and what modifications, if any, to make in the existing law. This particular question in the Texas case ties directly in to those debates.
If the Court strikes down even one district here as an unconstitutional gerrymandering, it would be a dramatic moment in the constitutional law of democratic politics. The Court has never struck down any election district, let alone a districting plan, as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander[/size]
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/rick_pildes_on_1.html
Good call, Mr.Pildes and a great decision my the SCOTUS.
-
one party .gov
no constitution
invading the stan
torture
holy crap, we're commies
boosh
lol
:O :O :noid :noid :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
except we can't seem to get a basketball gold medal, roflmao:D :D
-
Ya know... there's a reason why there's 98% chance that an incumbent congressman will get re-elected to the House.
The notion of term limits simply treats the symptom. The disease is gerrymandering.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Back and forth, yeah right. The fat kid has just sat on your teeter totter and he ain't getting up for a long time.
ROFL..
and to continue the metaphor, they've installed a FREE (paid for by the philanthropies) big mac bucket brigade from the local macdonalds to the fat kid.. just so he doesn't starve to death sittin there.
-
Anybody remember the district that was redrawn to create a black majority which could elect it's "own" representative. It was the width of a highway and the row of houses on both sides.
Anyone remember where that was?
How many of you libs expressed outrage over the idiocy of that?
Congressional districts are routinely redrawn every ten years...and every ten years the party in the majority of each state does everything legal, and often illegal, to marginalize the voters of the opposition party.
Nothing new about that, and you well know it. I strongly suspect that your outrage is a mere affectation, which will be put back into the closet when your party is back in power.
-
Shaw vs. Reno:
"Classifications of citizens based solely on race are by their nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality, because they threaten to stigmatize persons by reason of their membership in a racial group and to incite racial hostility."
'Nuff said.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Does this mean our Democrats are going back to New Mexico? If so, the IQ of both states is likely to go up.
-Sik
It`s a low outiside slow ball.
He swings.
He hits.
It`s a homerun. :)
Didn`t know you were from Mcinkneeknee. Small world.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Didn`t know you were from Mcinkneeknee. Small world.
I don't think anyone is actually "from" McKinney. We all just moved here in the last 5 years. We topped 100,000 last year, and the growth keeps on coming. I've got to move out of here, but the City's just going to follow me wherever I go. Sigh.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I don't think anyone is actually "from" McKinney. We all just moved here in the last 5 years. We topped 100,000 last year, and the growth keeps on coming. I've got to move out of here, but the City's just going to follow me wherever I go. Sigh.
-Sik
LOL I hear ya.
Just move down here to Tawakoni with the rest uf us.
We still have some that try to bring city ways here with them, but we just use em for cut bait. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
LOL I hear ya.
Just move down here to Tawakoni with the rest uf us.
We still have some that try to bring city ways here with them, but we just use em for cut bait. :)
How funny, I was just looking at some houses out there. I'll probably end up between McKinney and Greenville though, so that I can work both Colling and Hunt counties. I need to think about how long it takes to get to the Collin County District court from Tawakoni. You on the East side or the west side?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
How funny, I was just looking at some houses out there. I'll probably end up between McKinney and Greenville though, so that I can work both Colling and Hunt counties. I need to think about how long it takes to get to the Collin County District court from Tawakoni. You on the East side or the west side?
-Sik
More like the south side :) ...or SW.
Duck Cove.
Sorry for the hijack gents.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
h....Its like tidal pools man, be glad for the moon :D
Um...tidal pools don't shift...
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Im not too "up" on Texas politics but the feeling I get is that the politics in Texas are unlike the politics of just about any other state....that is to say, unconventional.
Best regards, keep on voting.
There not unconventional at all. Its backdoor late night B.C. every session. and I know. I see it from the front lines so to speak. Every state does it the same and the the Federal government does it to an art.
-
After the 1990 census, the Democrats controlled both houses of the Texas legislature. Texas was trending heavily Republican but that didn't stop the Democrats from redrawing district lines to inrease their hold on the legislture by 21 seats. So when the evillllll republicans did the same thing its suddenly the biggest "shocker" in legislative history.
Forgive me if I laugh out loud at your distress.
A fellow Texan
-
Originally posted by Yeager
as long as they uphold the 2nd amendment as an individual right I dont really worry about the other stuff.
Things will tilt back towards the liberals, then after a time, things will shift back.
On and on it goes, back and fourth....Its like tidal pools man, be glad for the moon :D
It really doesn't matter if the White House, House and Senate all were in liberal control...the only way they can legislate is through the courts. One more Justice and their history for many years.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
After the 1990 census, the Democrats controlled both houses of the Texas legislature. Texas was trending heavily Republican but that didn't stop the Democrats from redrawing district lines to inrease their hold on the legislture by 21 seats. So when the evillllll republicans did the same thing its suddenly the biggest "shocker" in legislative history.
Forgive me if I laugh out loud at your distress.
A fellow Texan
From Slate:
Justice Kennedy, the focus of all attention today, says: "You tell us a partisan gerrymander is bad. But then you tell us you can't correct it when it happens." He says that absent the Republican redistricting plan, the old Democratic gerrymander from 1990 is "frozen." Justice Stephen Breyer cites "factual evidence" in the record that the pre-existing Democrat-driven gerrymander was "much worse."
That from Breyer.
Breyer
Which one of you folks outraged at the "Republican Gerrymander" will now tell me to ignore Breyer, being that he is such a right-wing conservative tool of the Republicans?
:rofl
-
Gerrymandering in any way, shape or form is bad. Why cant they just give 4 county districts and be done with it?
Instead we get insane districts like these:
(http://www.texasinsider.org/images/article_images/CongressionalDistricts.jpg)
The 10th runs from Austin to Houston! The freaking 15th & 25th are 400 miles long! How about the 19th? How many oxycontin did they take to come up with that? The thing looks like Tetris on acid.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Gerrymandering in any way, shape or form is bad. Why cant they just give 4 county districts and be done with it?
Instead we get insane districts like these:
I agree its BS, but its long establised BS. The fact that it has been done this way for decades dosn't make it any more apealing.
Back to your statement "The SCOTUS has become a Republican tool."
December 5, 1995, Argued
June 13, 1996, Decided
DECISION: Each of three congressional districts established, under Texas legislature's redistricting plan, with African-American or Hispanic majority held to violate Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment as racial gerrymander.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 1003. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG and BREYER, JJ., joined, post, p. 1045.
----------2006-----------------------------------------------------
Liberal Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer voted to strike down the entire plan. Stevens said it cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because the sole motivation was a desire to minimize the strength of Texas Democrats.
In 1996 they (Stevens and Breyer) held one opinion, in 2006 they flipped. On the other side of that coin the conservative side did the same thing, before it was bad, now its fine.
Gerymandering in some form or fashion is not going away.
welcome to the 1960's
-
Originally posted by rpm
Gerrymandering in any way, shape or form is bad. Why cant they just give 4 county districts and be done with it?
But you're fine with leaving the 1990 Democratic gerrymander as it is?
After Bryer says the pre-existing Democrat-driven gerrymander was "much worse"?
Maybe all Republican gerrymanders should be revised but Democratic ones will just have to stay the way they are?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Gerrymandering in any way, shape or form is bad. Why cant they just give 4 county districts and be done with it?
-
Because it isn't based on counties? It's based on census population.
Should a county with a million residents get the same representation as a county with 100k residents?
-
Actually the 19th looks like it had to be done by a Democrat, it looks like the eastern slice of Massachussetts, including Cape Cod...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Should a county with a million residents get the same representation as a county with 100k residents?
Senatorial representation isn't based upon population.
I'll admit... it's been a long time since I was in a government class, but IIRC the Constitution pretty much left congressional districting up to the states. If a state chooses to apportion the districts based upon population, they can but they don't necessarily have to.
Of course, I might be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Toad
But you're fine with leaving the 1990 Democratic gerrymander as it is?
After Bryer says the pre-existing Democrat-driven gerrymander was "much worse"?
Maybe all Republican gerrymanders should be revised but Democratic ones will just have to stay the way they are?
I never said I was fine with leaving the '90 plan as is. I don't like THIS plan, especially since it just opened the floodgates for every state to do the same thing. Put up a more logical plan and I'll back it. Let the voters decide their represenative, not the other way around.
-
Each state gets two senators regardless. The population of a state deems how many representatives it gets to send to the house of reperesentatives, the districts are drawn along population lines, so one district with an large urban (usually liberal) population doesn't skew the voting results one way or another when the suburban population (usually conservative) wanted different representation.
I don't really care what Texas does in it's own borders, but I recall hearing the supreme court of the United States only up-held part of the redistricting & had said there were some that would have to be changed back along the previous lines, but maybe I didn't catch the whole story.
As far as the courts being a tool of the republicans...I don't see where the Gitmo ruling plays into that since President Bush is the lead republican & wants the Gitmo military tribunals and I don't see where any of the liberals on here mention that little SCOTUS ruling...it sort of sinks the whole "the supreme court is a republican tool" arguement.
The supreme court is far too liberal & does not represent the feelings of the average U.S. citizen, the majority of which are still rather conservative (as shown by natl. election voting trends). I myself would like to see lifetime appointments for supreme court justices ended, but I fear that would play right into the hands of the treasonous liberals in the U.S. urban areas.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
The supreme court is far too liberal & does not represent the feelings of the average U.S. citizen, the majority of which are still rather conservative (as shown by natl. election voting trends). I myself would like to see lifetime appointments for supreme court justices ended, but I fear that would play right into the hands of the treasonous liberals in the U.S. urban areas.
What absolute horse****.