Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

USSC - interesting decisions...


Pope Flick
 Share

Recommended Posts

Today's 5-3 decision overturning the military tribunals is a nice step back from where we had gone as a nation, and a victory for the idea of checks and balances because the courst basically said Bush can't circumvent congress in the suspension of due process for enemy combatants. With this ruling he must now go to congress to have their existence continued. It's also nice to see a victory for the Geneva Convention.

 

Yesterday's decision to uphold the re-gerrymandered Texas congressional districts in a non-census year will most likely come back to bite the Reps in the ass, especially if they lose several state legislatures this year as projected. Hopefully, the Dems will drop a sack and take these new rules to shamelessly redistrict states they win in (like the Cons did in Texas) and redraw the US congressional maps to benefit them in time for 2008. If Reps want to play with those rules, they're not going to like it. Hopefully after the Dems redrawing that we can eventaully go back to census year redistricting once everyone realizes how bad it is.

 

Still, the court's makeup has changed and seems to NOT be a complete trainwreck, at least so far imo, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday's decision to uphold the re-gerrymandered Texas congressional districts in a non-census year will most likely come back to bite the Reps in the ass, especially if they lose several state legislatures this year as projected. Hopefully, the Dems will drop a sack and take these new rules to shamelessly redistrict states they win in (like the Cons did in Texas) and redraw the US congressional maps to benefit them in time for 2008. If Reps want to play with those rules, they're not going to like it. Hopefully after the Dems redrawing that we can eventaully go back to census year redistricting once everyone realizes how bad it is.

 

It should be in the Dem's plan to massively retaliate for the TX gerrymander, then both parties should agree to be done with this foolishness and return to the status quo ante.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's 5-3 decision overturning the military tribunals is a nice step back from where we had gone as a nation, and a victory for the idea of checks and balances because the courst basically said Bush can't circumvent congress in the suspension of due process for enemy combatants. With this ruling he must now go to congress to have their existence continued. It's also nice to see a victory for the Geneva Convention.

 

Yesterday's decision to uphold the re-gerrymandered Texas congressional districts in a non-census year will most likely come back to bite the Reps in the ass, especially if they lose several state legislatures this year as projected. Hopefully, the Dems will drop a sack and take these new rules to shamelessly redistrict states they win in (like the Cons did in Texas) and redraw the US congressional maps to benefit them in time for 2008. If Reps want to play with those rules, they're not going to like it. Hopefully after the Dems redrawing that we can eventaully go back to census year redistricting once everyone realizes how bad it is.

 

Still, the court's makeup has changed and seems to NOT be a complete trainwreck, at least so far imo, yet.

 

 

yeah, but can you make a monkey say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday's decision to uphold the re-gerrymandered Texas congressional districts in a non-census year will most likely come back to bite the Reps in the ass, especially if they lose several state legislatures this year as projected. Hopefully, the Dems will drop a sack and take these new rules to shamelessly redistrict states they win in (like the Cons did in Texas) and redraw the US congressional maps to benefit them in time for 2008. If Reps want to play with those rules, they're not going to like it. Hopefully after the Dems redrawing that we can eventaully go back to census year redistricting once everyone realizes how bad it is.

 

 

What do you think the republitards' re-drawing the districts is in retaliation for? That's exactly whet the democrats did last time they were running $hit, re-draw the districts. It's a joke. A sad one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think the republitards' re-drawing the districts is in retaliation for? That's exactly whet the democrats did last time they were running $hit, re-draw the districts. It's a joke. A sad one.

 

 

Wrong. They did it in an off census year. They've traditionally been in census years: 1980, 1990, 2000. This case was about a redraw led by Delay in 2003.

 

If you ahve a link that demonstrates otherwise I'd love to see it.

Edited by Pope Flick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. They did it in an off census year. They've traditionally been in census years: 1980, 1990, 2000. This case was about a redraw led by Delay in 2003.

 

If you ahve a link that demonstrates otherwise I'd love to see it.

 

 

The Texas districts and their re-drawing have been in litigation since the 1991 re-draw. Delay's BS is in retaliation for the 2002 elections, I believe, and has to do with the fact that Texas voted 57% republican in 2002 yet the democrats won like 5 more seats. I don't agree with those 57% of Texans but it seemed odd to me at the time and still does that with 57% of Texans voting Republicans, the Democrats won.

 

I'll see what I can find for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texas districts and their re-drawing have been in litigation since the 1991 re-draw. Delay's BS is in retaliation for the 2002 elections, I believe, and has to do with the fact that Texas voted 57% republican in 2002 yet the democrats won like 5 more seats. I don't agree with those 57% of Texans but it seemed odd to me at the time and still does that with 57% of Texans voting Republicans, the Democrats won.

 

I'll see what I can find for you.

 

 

 

Wow. Even GropeDikc's own people bitschslap him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Even GropeDikc's own people bitschslap him.

 

How? 57% statewide is much different than results being broken down district by district. Dems can win 51/49 in 2 districts and get buried in a 3rd 80/20 and the 'net result' will be more total votes for Cons but that isn't relative when you talk of districts.

 

Are you really that dense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Texas districts and their re-drawing have been in litigation since the 1991 re-draw. Delay's BS is in retaliation for the 2002 elections, I believe, and has to do with the fact that Texas voted 57% republican in 2002 yet the democrats won like 5 more seats. I don't agree with those 57% of Texans but it seemed odd to me at the time and still does that with 57% of Texans voting Republicans, the Democrats won.

 

I'll see what I can find for you.

 

 

I am back from lunch.

 

The Dems had not done it in an off census year in Texas or anywhere else, I believe. Traditionally, redistricting had always occurred in a census year everywhere in the US. Off census year redistricting is a new thing the GOP has been doing over the last 5-10 years. Now everyone will do it, sadly. Expect redistricting battles in every state every year except for those states whose constitutions ban it in off census years (e.g. Colorado, I believe).

Edited by skins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How? 57% statewide is much different than results being broken down district by district. Dems can win 51/49 in 2 districts and get buried in a 3rd 80/20 and the 'net result' will be more total votes for Cons but that isn't relative when you talk of districts.

 

Are you really that dense?

 

 

 

The problem in Texas started when, in 1991, the Dem majority redrew the districts based on a liberal SC ruling (Brennan) that gave wide latitude in racial districting. On the face of it, racial districting has some merit, but the Dems, in typical fashion, took advantage of it to maintain their political foothold. They drew districts that were more elaborately patterned than the stains in Skin's underwear.

 

Fast forward to 2001. The Pubs had regained control of the legislature and attempted to redraw districts based on the 2000 census. The Dems would never agree to a single iteration. They blocked at every turn. Surprise! They loved having their majority drawn districts but :D when the tables were turned by the voters. Ultimately, the districts were decided by the liberal judiciary, which basically upheld the '91 maps.

 

The 2003 redraws were in retaliation for 1991 and 2001. So, you are wrong and stick yer head in doo doo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am back from lunch.

 

The Dems had not done it in an off census year in Texas or anywhere else, I believe. Traditionally, redistricting had always occurred in a census year everywhere in the US. Off census year redistricting is a new thing the GOP has been doing over the last 5-10 years. Now everyone will do it, sadly. Expect redistricting battles in every state every year except for those states whose constitutions ban it in off census years (e.g. Colorado, I believe).

 

 

I disagree with Cod's politics but he's got the same info as me on this subject.

 

Or are you trying to claim the texas republican party is not so petty and juvenie as to hold a grudge for almost 2 decades?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in Texas started when, in 1991, the Dem majority redrew the districts based on a liberal SC ruling (Brennan) that gave wide latitude in racial districting. On the face of it, racial districting has some merit, but the Dems, in typical fashion, took advantage of it to maintain their political foothold. They drew districts that were more elaborately patterned than the stains in Skin's underwear.

 

Fast forward to 2001. The Pubs had regained control of the legislature and attempted to redraw districts based on the 2000 census. The Dems would never agree to a single iteration. They blocked at every turn. Surprise! They loved having their majority drawn districts but :D when the tables were turned by the voters. Ultimately, the districts were decided by the liberal judiciary, which basically upheld the '91 maps.

 

The 2003 redraws were in retaliation for 1991 and 2001. So, you are wrong and stick yer head in doo doo.

 

 

 

The doo doo is the 'facts' in your post - nice try, but the failure of the legisalture to redistrict Texas in 2001 was filled by the Federal Courts who drew up the new map that was then put in place.

 

Then in 2002, when Delay acted like a girlie man they put forth the first off census year redistricting plan, which is the plan the Dems left the state 2 or 3 times to avoid the vote. What the Cons did then was something never done before: throw out a Federal court's legal decision and put forth their plan to hold power.

 

I agree that this tit for tat thing is exactly that, but the Dems at least did theirs within the confines of established rules. DeLay decided to make his own rules, and now the the SC has upheld them, you should expect the Dems in several states to redistrict before the 2008 elections to aid them in taking back congress.

 

Be careful what you wish for Cons......

 

 

Although the larger and more pertinent issue is that legislatures get to draw up maps to benefit themselves, which is one of the crooked things in this democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in Texas started when, in 1991, the Dem majority redrew the districts based on a liberal SC ruling (Brennan) that gave wide latitude in racial districting. On the face of it, racial districting has some merit, but the Dems, in typical fashion, took advantage of it to maintain their political foothold. They drew districts that were more elaborately patterned than the stains in Skin's underwear.

 

Fast forward to 2001. The Pubs had regained control of the legislature and attempted to redraw districts based on the 2000 census. The Dems would never agree to a single iteration. They blocked at every turn. Surprise! They loved having their majority drawn districts but :D when the tables were turned by the voters. Ultimately, the districts were decided by the liberal judiciary, which basically upheld the '91 maps.

 

The 2003 redraws were in retaliation for 1991 and 2001. So, you are wrong and stick yer head in doo doo.

 

 

I agree with you that there is some silliness in how districts are drawn up by both parties. But the Democrats had always done the redrawing in conjunction with the census and Delay and the GOP broke that rule. Now it is gone forever and we can all expect redrawings every time there is a switch in party control of a state legislature.

 

Thanks, Republicans. And you must be a mongoloid to even suggest that the judiciary in Texas is liberal. When you say such silly things it kills yer credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doo doo is the 'facts' in your post - nice try, but the failure of the legisalture to redistrict Texas in 2001 was filled by the Federal Courts who drew up the new map that was then put in place.

 

Then in 2002, when Delay acted like a girlie man they put forth the first off census year redistricting plan, which is the plan the Dems left the state 2 or 3 times to avoid the vote. What the Cons did then was something never done before: throw out a Federal court's legal decision and put forth their plan to hold power.

 

:D ok, whose job is it to draw the districting lines, the legislature or the federal judiciary? maybe it's totally and completely unprecedented to do it two years after the census instead of 1 year, but is there some law that says it can't or shouldn't be done?

 

edit: i guess the answer to my last question, via the USSC, is 'no'. :D

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D ok, whose job is it to draw the districting lines, the legislature or the federal judiciary? maybe it's totally and completely unprecedented to do it two years after the census instead of 1 year, but is there some law that says it can't or shouldn't be done?

 

edit: i guess the answer to my last question, via the USSC, is 'no'. :D

 

 

In Colorado there is, I believe. I think it is in the state constitution that redistricting can only happen in conjunction with a census. I think every state should adopt that law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem in Texas started when, in 1991, the Dem majority redrew the districts based on a liberal SC ruling (Brennan) that gave wide latitude in racial districting. On the face of it, racial districting has some merit, but the Dems, in typical fashion, took advantage of it to maintain their political foothold. They drew districts that were more elaborately patterned than the stains in Skin's underwear.

 

Fast forward to 2001. The Pubs had regained control of the legislature and attempted to redraw districts based on the 2000 census. The Dems would never agree to a single iteration. They blocked at every turn. Surprise! They loved having their majority drawn districts but :D when the tables were turned by the voters. Ultimately, the districts were decided by the liberal judiciary, which basically upheld the '91 maps.

The 2003 redraws were in retaliation for 1991 and 2001. So, you are wrong and stick yer head in doo doo.

 

 

In 2001, the Democrats and Republicans were unable to agree on a new district map to correspond with the 2000 census. Per state law, under these circumstances, the matter could be submitted to a panel of judges. The Republican minority recommended this solution. Accordingly, the matter was forwarded for this type of review, and the judges drew a new map.

 

On November 28, 2001, a three-judge federal panel adopted the Republican controlled Legislative Redistricting Board's state Senate map and most of the House map. The panel changed the parts of the House map that the US Department of Justice said were in violation of the Voting Rights Act on November 16, 2001. The congressional map was adjusted as set forth below.

 

Fifth Circuit judges are far from liberal ...

 

Balderas Opinion -- State Senate

 

Balderas Opinion - Congressional Districts

 

Article on LRB Plan - 4 of 5 Members Were Republicans

 

You, Cod, are full of poo ...

Edited by Beaumont
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information