Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justicesí Texas Redistricting Ruling Likely to Help G.O.P.(Supreme Court overturned Judges plan)
The New York Times ^ | January 20, 2012 | ADAM LIPTAK

Posted on 01/21/2012 6:51:46 AM PST by Texas Fossil

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected elections maps drawn by a federal court in Texas that had favored Democratic candidates there.

The unanimous decision said that redistricting is primarily a job for elected state officials and that the lower court had not paid enough deference to maps drawn by the State Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans. The justices sent the case back to the lower court, extending the uncertainty surrounding this major voting-rights case.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: court; overturned; redistricting; texas
This article conveys the essence of the Supreme Courts reversal of the 3 judge panel's decision to redraw the Texas reapportionment maps. But is softens the criticism of the court concerning the 3 judge panels actual maps.

I suggest you read the actual judgement from the court.

here

SupremeCourtDecision 11-713

This article did point out that there were 3 related cases involved.

1 posted on 01/21/2012 6:52:01 AM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
This article conveys the fact that liberal judicial activism is alive and well and that the judicial authority is trying to extend its authority over the Congress, whose job it is to make these maps. They have a right to determine its constitutional muster only, they have not right to redesign the Congressinal maps.
2 posted on 01/21/2012 6:58:23 AM PST by kindred (wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kindred
Correct. The problem is the Voting Act of 1965 (46 years ago) is unconstitutional.

The constitutionality of Section 5 itself was not at issue in the case, but the opinion said its “intrusion on state sovereignty” raises “serious constitutional questions,” quoting in part from a 2009 decision.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas went further, repeating his view that “Section 5 is unconstitutional.”

3 posted on 01/21/2012 7:11:32 AM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kindred

State legislatures, not Congress.


4 posted on 01/21/2012 8:26:18 AM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; Impy; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; randita; Sun

Finally we won one. The Democrat-appointed lower court really overstepped their bounds.


5 posted on 01/21/2012 8:58:20 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (A chameleon belongs in a pet store, not the White House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; All

Democrat whores.


6 posted on 01/21/2012 9:34:53 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Farewell sweet Rick, we barely knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; Texas Fossil; Impy; GOPsterinMA; fieldmarshaldj; randita; Sun; SwinneySwitch; ...
Finally we won one. The Democrat-appointed lower court really overstepped their bounds.

At least one of the 2 judges on that panel of 3 that drew those maps should be impeached. That judge is the brother in law of a senior DemocRAT state senator.

7 posted on 01/21/2012 10:00:30 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil
Correct. The problem is the Voting Act of 1965 (46 years ago) is unconstitutional....In his concurrence, Justice Thomas went further, repeating his view that “Section 5 is unconstitutional.”

If the South Carolina Voter ID decision gets fast-tracked to the Supreme Court this year, we might see Section 5 gone very soon.

8 posted on 01/21/2012 10:21:04 AM PST by denydenydeny (The more a system is all about equality in theory the more it's an aristocracy in practice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; All

DemocRATS = the fuel that heats Hell.


9 posted on 01/21/2012 10:22:29 AM PST by GOPsterinMA (Farewell sweet Rick, we barely knew ye...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

New York Times wrote: “The constitutionality of Section 5 itself was not at issue in the case, but the opinion said its “intrusion on state sovereignty” raises “serious constitutional questions,” quoting in part from a 2009 decision.

In his concurrence, Justice Thomas went further, repeating his view that “Section 5 is unconstitutional.” “

The issues of state sovereignty is almost insignificant in principle compared to the non-uniformity & discrimination of that act among the States.

For the Federal Goverment to make a law that only applies with burdens upon some states and not others is to lower the rank of those States & their people to a 2nd class status below others. Thus robing them of their “Equal Footing” and violating the uniformity clause of the U.S. Constitution.

If we are to be subject to a boundless(lawless) Federal Goverment, let us at least pretend that this goverment rules all States as equals.

It is Ironic in that section 5 inherently violates the very printable it was supposedly created to enforce equality among men. An irony lost in its consistency in that regard with the other acts passed & signed by the same corrupt men.


10 posted on 01/21/2012 5:23:03 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
The irony.

The 1965 Voting Rights Act was promoted by none other than “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson. The one who gained his first Senate Seat with the help of George Pharr (Duke of Duvall), who in box 13 voted the graveyard in alphabetic order and all the ballots were in the same handwriting.

This is the slimeball that we have to thank for 47 years of this kind of nonsense. He was also the architect of the Great Society.

If there was ever a clean house time in Washington DC, it is now.

Size DC!

11 posted on 01/21/2012 5:31:14 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; GOPsterinMA; AuH2ORepublican; Paleo Conservative; fieldmarshaldj; ...

Good. We needed some good news after apparently getting screwed over in Arizona. Getting a good map in TX is a must.


12 posted on 01/21/2012 6:46:41 PM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

“At least one of the 2 judges on that panel of 3 that drew those maps should be impeached. That judge is the brother in law of a senior DemocRAT state senator.”

I never could understand why so many horrible judges get to keep their jobs no matter what they do. Where are the checks and balances?


13 posted on 01/21/2012 8:52:24 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sun; Clemenza; rmlew; Cacique
I never could understand why so many horrible judges get to keep their jobs no matter what they do. Where are the checks and balances?

These judges totally ignored Texas law that requires that if a district can be put entirely within a county, it must be. If a district must include more than one county, it must contain whole counties with the exception of 1 and only 1 county. My county had enough population in 2000 to qualify for 2.4 representatives. In 2010 due to faster growth in the San Antonio, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin triangle, my county now only qualifies for 2.04 representatives. The legislature drew 2 whole districts in the county.

The problem for Democrats is that while Nueces county is Hispanic majority, it is trending Republican. In 2006 on the same night Republicans were getting wiped out nationwide and in the largest urban counties of Texas, Nueces county elected both a Republican sheriff and a Republican county judge (executive) against Hispanic Democrat candidates.

McCain carried Nueces county in 2008, in fact Nueces county was the 2nd largest county in the state that voted for McCain in 2008. We also reelected the sheriff to a whole 4 year term, after serving out the unexpired from 2006-2008, with 60% of the vote.

In 2010 Nueces county decisively defeated 14 term incumbent congressman Solomon Ortiz (TX-27) in his home county and contributed to Ortiz' 799 vote loss district wide. We also defeated 2 Democrat incumbent state representatives in Democrat leaning districts one of whom was Solomon Ortiz, Jr. the son of the congressman in the most Democratic district in the county.

Democrats are running scared, because it looks like Cameron county (Brownsville) is showing signs of following Nueces county's pattern. They reelected their Republican county judge in 2008 in a close election with a very screwy recount that had some serious irregularities that almost allowed the Democrat challenger to prevail.

Democrats want to neutralize the Republican gains among Hispanics in Nueces county. They are afraid that Nueces county can be a template for Republican gains among Hispanic voters across the state. The 3 judge panel attempted to neutralize Nueces county by drawing districts that cross county lines in violation of state law so they can cancel out Republican Hispanic votes in Nueces county. Even though we qualified for only 2 districts, the judges "creatively" carved out smaller districts across multiple counties and gave back a district that was lost to the Dallas area.

The judges really overreached in redrawing the congressional districts. They took Nueces county which was previously entirely contained in the 27th district and split it into two pieces. The western portion of the county was put in district that goes south to the Mexican border taking in areas of the current 27th district. The eastern portion of the county was placed in a congressional district that stretches through Ron Paul's current district all the way to the western portions of Harris county to the town of Katy which is west of Houston. In both districts Nueces county would be out voted by the other population centers of those districts. This would basically take away Nueces county's and Corpus Christi's voice in Congress. The new districts would mean that the greater Houston area to the north would dominate one district, and Brownsville would dominate the other. Nueces county by itself has almost half the population necessary for one congressional district. It forms the nucleus of a community of interest that should be represented by one congressional district.

In 2010 Republicans made huge gains in the state legislature. We went from a 76-74 narrow majority after the 2008 elections to 101-49 super majority after winning almost all of the Republican districts and picking up a few party switchers. These were the same districts we had when we came 19 votes from having a tie in the House in 2008. Had there been a 75-75 split, the Democrats would have insisted on having a Democrat speaker.

As a result of the 2010 elections, we had 6 Hispanic Republicans (one due to a party switch) in the Texas House. Guess what! The 3 judge panel placed every single one of the Hispanic Republicans in heavily Democrat leaning districts that would be very hard for any Republican to win. Supposedly in the name of increasing Hispanic voter strength, the court drew districts that would have wiped out the existing elected Republican legislators. Apparently the 2 Democrat appointed judges from the panel 3 judges only think that Hispanic voters can only be represented by Democrat office holders. They drew Hispanics into highly segregated districts so that candidates would not have to worry about appealing to the Anglo minorites in the district in order to win. We have proven that qualified Hispanic candidates can win in south Texas by appealing across ethnic and class lines.

The unanimous Supreme Court decision is a great win for Republicans, because it will allow us to have districts in which candidates can win by appealing across ethnic and economic lines.

14 posted on 01/22/2012 1:00:27 AM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Thanks for your insight!


15 posted on 01/22/2012 2:37:19 AM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sun

We need to end lifetime appointments for Federal Judges. The only way to get rid of them is impeachment and they need to blatantly take a bribe or something for that to ever happen.


16 posted on 01/24/2012 3:04:27 PM PST by Impy (Don't call me red.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson