Posted on 06/28/2006 8:56:44 AM PDT by jmranchman
Court nixes part of Texas political map By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of the Republican-boosting Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay but threw out part, saying some of the new boundaries failed to protect minority voting rights.
ADVERTISEMENT
The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.
Republicans picked up six Texas congressional seats two years ago, and the court's ruling does not seriously threaten those gains. Lawmakers, however, will have to adjust boundary lines to address the court's concerns.
At issue was the shifting of 100,000 Hispanics out of a district represented by a Republican incumbent and into a new, oddly shaped district. Foes of the plan had argued that that was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voting rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Gina Holland does not know what to do anymore.
BS!.......
Failed to protect minority voting?
It ADDED two minority congressmen INCLUDING redistricting Chris Bell(D) into a predominantly black district.
The Democrat still won but he wasn't white and his name was not Chris Bell.
Chris Bell was the outgoing Congressman who leveled the ethics charge against Tom DeLay.
Is Chris Bell a racist? I don't know but I do know that after he loses the governor's race this fall, he'll be a 3 time loser (mayor, congress, governor).
So,in other words,"Hispanics" aren't being allowed to vote,right? Apart from being able to vote (assuming they meet all Federal and state requirements) what right do "Hispanics" (or any other group) have to elect a candidate of their choosing?
Or are election quotas written into our Constitution?
So in say 10 years when whites are the minority in border
states due to the hispanic invasion from mexico we can
expect the court to throw out districts where the white
minority has no chance to elect the person of their choice(?)
Since when was American democracy about engineering things so minorities can win? Am I in America or some crazed Alice in Wonderland P.C. world of lunacy? If Hispanics can't win based on their ideas and ability to sell their candidacy, then why should the courts be the ones to force things? Why don't we just give up the idea of elected legislatures and just have the courts run everything? Sheesh...
Freaking unbeliveable. The Dems lost EVERY one of their points. All the Judges did is require 1 district redrawn. On EVERY points the Democrats LOST
Don't think you can redraw one district without redrawing other adjacent district(s).
Bygolly, you really do not know how this works do you? Yes, you can. Simply change the border line between the two districts in question. That the point. They drew one district weird to split the Hispanic vote. All they got to do is rearrange that line between the two Congressional districts to fit the Court's guidelines. On every other point you Democrats LOST.
The ruling was a major victory for the Republicans, but the MSM can not bring themselves to report it as such. The main issue was the constitutionality of redistricting between censuses. The minority voting rights issue was a secondary point at best and involved just one district. So how does the MSM report the story? It leads with the minor issue and buries the main issue deep in the story. Just amazing.
Also, is the VRA's renewal still stuck in Congress? If so, this could have an affect on the decision as well.
IMHO, I think this is even more noteworthy. It has the potential to generate congressional redistricting every time a house in a state legislature changes control from dems to pubbies or vice versa. In states with the right of popular initiatives, that could lead to more states having non-partisan commissions drawing the maps of congressional districts and making many more of those districts up for grabs.
In defeat they seem to still win!
And Gainesville. Someone once referred to the district (at least the 1990s version) as looking like a snake. I've thought of it as the Blackadder district ever since.
For all that, when a Republican runs against her, they usually get more than 40% of the vote.
Anthony Kennedy is on the Court only because the senator from Chappaquiddick succeeded in preventing Robert Bork's confirmation.
Net Gain for Dems 1
And more important still, this proves that Tom DeLay did nothing illegal in this regard either. More evidence that Tom DeLay was run out of office for no reason, other than the fact he's a hard line conservative that won't compromise on his beliefs. Though he didn't really get run out, he was an honorable man who fell on his sword so he wouldn't be a lightning rod for liberal radicals against the conservative movement nation wide. In every way he is more honorable and dignified than any democrat. Even though he broke no law, he left for the good of the party and his beliefs. Whereas democrats stay even after being accused and indicted, like Patrick Kennedy, Rostenkowski, Clinton (both of them), William Jefferson, Pelosi, and Reid, and they only leave office when they're voted out, like Gary Condit or are drug to jail by law enforcement after conviction, like Trafficant and Marion Barry. THIS is the real culture of corruption, the democrat liberal one.
And how many of those Hispanics that aren't allowed to vote under this redistricting, are illegal immigrants? They can vote. Just because they vote and their democrats don't win doesn't mean they can't vote. And to be factual, the Hispanic block is a growing Conservative block. That's why the democrats are so against immigration reform or border security because they need illegally voting illegal Hispanice to off set the growing numbers of conservative minded Hispanics that vote each year. And when you point out to a practicing Christian hispanic, the DNC plank and how anti Christian and anti-moral it is, most Hispanics stop voting democrat, and didn't know those specifics before. That's what's really going on.
If we all pray and hope really hard, Stevens or Ginsburg will have to retire for health reasons soon, maybe even before the election, but at least in the next two and a half years. If we're REALLY blessed it will be before November. That would drive MANY more conservatives to the polls, because most Americans are sick, of liberal activist judges and courts, and conservatives would vote in EXTREMELY high numbers to get as many conservatives elected as possible, to help ensure that good strict Constructionist Judges like Pryor or Jones or ones like them get the nomination. That's what most Americans want, and once someone like them, in the mold of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito get on the court, replacing Stevens and eventually Ginsburg, the 9th circus court and other lib slanting courts will be marginalized and be puppet courts, because the Supreme Court will be strongly Constructionist conservative majority, 6 against 2 liberals (Bryer and Suiter) and one moderate (Kennedy), and that will cement the Judicial system as being bound to the Constitution and law, not judicial activism and we will never have to fear for radical courts legislating from the bench, like has been the case for years, and it will cease being a substitute legislative branch for the Democrats. THAT is the big thing to hope and pray for right now.
I'd be very interested in your take on this case.
I expect on reading the decisions that I'll find that the press, as usual, has butchered the story. I doubt that the Court upheld the right of any state to redistrict its legislature repeatedly and at will.
More likely, the Court upheld this particular redistricting because the Constitution requires the legislatures to do this once in ten years. And I expect to find the Court saying that the "first redistricting" did not meet the constitutional definition since it was done by a court, rather than by the legislature, as required in the Constitution.
If the decision says what I think it will on this point, this does NOT amount to a license for all states to redraw their legislative districts repeatedly and at will.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
Thanks, I didn't understand the legislature v. court aspectof the case -- it really makes it a different animal. As always you illuminate the darkness that is Reuters and AP.
The bias it that article is unbelievable. The MSM cannot write an article praising the GOP or one indicating a GOP win if there life depended on it.
IMHO, I think this is even more noteworthy
IMHO this could well turn out to be the most important part of the decision. This could well turn states into battle grounds every two years and causing even more dissension between the two major parties. I see nothing but trouble in this one.
The SCOTUS has no business involving itself in a political question, especially one that is not even a federal issue. Redistricting is a state power. The Equal Protection clause is a weak argument for interfering as well. Afterall, you can use that argument to say that a redistricting map that doesn't give democrats a majority isn't protecting them. Because of Redistricting's very nature, someone always gets the shaft. Thats why its a political question and not a matter that the courts should resolve.
I'd be very interested in your opinion of the ruling. I hope I catch it when you post.
I'm also looking forward to the day you are in Congress. :)
Jen
The 'Rats were loudly playing the race card to capitalize on the one detail where they won--they didn't point out that the incumbent Congressman from that district is Hispanic (but he's a Republican so he doesn't count). Not only are minorities entitled to safe districts where one of their race will win, but the winner must be a Democrat for the result to be valid.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
Maybe you should read what you just wrote! The USSC ruling was regarding one new district drawn for Bonilla. You rearrange the line between two districts, you change two districts. I thought that would be obvious...obviously not!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.