Society of Doom? [Federalist Society]

The Weekly Standard ^ | 10/20/2005 | Dean Barnett

[Racehorse]

She later went on to claim that said proportional representation is a "Constitutional requirement" of the Voting Rights Act, which is flatly wrong, and clear to anyone on even a cursory reading of Section 2(b).

I've seen where you've posted this several times.  With all due respect, she did no such thing.

She was referring to circumstances the Dallas City council faced in 1989 where White v. Regester and similar federal caselaw prevailed.  During her testimony, this was one of two cases she was specifically asked about.  The only question left open to Miers and the city of Dallas was what kind of proportional representation scheme did they prefer.

Consequent to the lawsuit, the judge imposed court-supervised proportional redistricting. 

[counterpunch]

All the legal scholars disagree with you.

[SalukiLawyer]

I am proud to say I founded my law school's chapter of the Federalist Society. (Suppose that disqualifies me for the SC, come to think of it. Since I, too, have tried cases, taken depositions, argued cases on appeal, etc. - as a recent summary of H.M.'s qualifications had it - I was kinda hopeful. Shoot.) Anyway, there is a left wing organization called The Lawyers' Guild at law schools, and the Federalist Society is a welcome presence for sanity where it is desparately needed.

It is not some wacko far-right klavern, nor, to my knowledge, is it perceived as such in the mainstream legal community. The fact that someone would make a decision not to associate with a respected conservative legal group while taking a leadership position in the ABA does not give me warm and fuzzies. (I choose not to belong to the ABA.)

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>As Dukakis discovered, discussions of the ACLU seldom involved the organization's admirable principles or non-partisanship.<<<

That is because all so-called 'nonpartisan' activities of the ACLU are calculated distractions from their true anti-country, anti-family, anti-God agenda. Those distractions provide an opening for leftists like you, Dean, to deceive some of the people with lies like the above statement.

>>>Instead, the ACLU is more typically (and unfairly) characterized as a group of left-wing lawyers determined to repeatedly stick its thumb in the eye of traditional American values and common sense. <<<

If you had not inserted the phrase "(and unfairly)" you would have got, at least, that statement right.

Who is this clown, Dean Barnett, and why is he working for The Weekly Standard?

[TheRobb7]

I see no problem with a few Federalists kicking butt.

[Racehorse]

All the legal scholars disagree with you.

Bet they don't.  :-)

WHITE v. REGESTER, 412 U.S. 755 (1973)

[counterpunch]

White v. Regester is about "districts equal in population" not proportional representation as advocated by Miers.

In fact, the opinion of White v. Regester even states "To sustain such claims, it is not enough that the racial group allegedly [412 U.S. 755, 766] discriminated against has not had legislative seats in proportion to its voting potential."

This is in direct contradiction to Miers's testimony and her stated understanding of the Equal Protections clause as expressed in her answer to question #17 on the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire.

[Racehorse]

White v. Regester is about "districts equal in population" not proportional representation as advocated by Miers.

I believe you're in error about the case, about Miers' advocacy and about how she answered her question.  But, I don't have the opportunity to give you a decent reply at the moment.  I'm off to spend the afternoon looking at the whales and such (Seaworld)!

Been enjoyable.  Since we're on opposite sides of  this issue, I'm sure we'll come up against these things and each other relatively soon.  Meanwhile, with respect to White v. Regester, here's something I've posted a time or two.

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.

Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.

Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws

In 1973, the Supreme Court held certain legislative multi-member districts unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment on the ground that they systematically diluted the voting strength of minority citizens in Bexar County, Texas. This decision in White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973), strongly shaped litigation through the 1970s against at-large systems and gerrymandered redistricting plans. In Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), however, the Supreme Court required that any constitutional claim of minority vote dilution must include proof of a racially discriminatory purpose, a requirement that was widely seen as making such claims far more difficult to prove.

Introduction To Federal Voting Rights Laws

[thoughtomator]

... discussions of the ACLU seldom involved the organization's admirable principles or non-partisanship

I'd like to believe this but all my attention is diverted to a bridge purchase at the moment.

[adam_az]

" It's pretty simple, the Dallas case was about district representation, instead of having 2 or 3 at large seats."

Making stuff up or distorting things AGAIN I see

She didn't spend nearly as much time talking about that as she did about affirmative action.

Looks like you didn't learn your lesson on the thread last night when you claimed the Texas bar was a private organization and then got busted on it.