Discussion in 'Politics' started by manifold, Aug 29, 2012.
Is this sound judgment or judicial activism?
Considering when the Democrats do it it is always fine, you answer.
Stays should have been issued as soon as the case was brought, until there was time to adjudicate it.
I do see it as overreaching, but to be fair, the south brought this upon themselves due to their century long ignoring of the 14th and 15th amendments to the consitution.
States should have the right to decide how to divide thier districts, with a few simple rules, mostly relating to equality of population, and I would even add certain dimensional requirements, (no snake districts).
The issue is that both parties will try to thin out voting blocks that vote against them during redistricting, and currently race is the only thing you are not allowed to use (by law). What I find interesting is that the courts will allow districts that create an almost automatic win for a minority group, but will not allow the opposite from happening, which to me goes against the spirit of the amendments.
Again, the South brought this on themselves, however sooner or later it has to stop paying for its past sins.
On what basis should anyone come to a conclusion of judicial activism?
I thought judicial decisions that republicans disagree with are ipso facto activism, no?
You'll have to show proof of this -- "What I find interesting is that the courts will allow districts that create an almost automatic win for a minority group, but will not allow the opposite from happening," -- happening in other cases, but in the case being discussed, just the opposite is true. 87% of the population growth in Texas is/was minority driven but-------but the 4 new gerrymandered districts were carved out in such a way that 50% of the new districts are mostly white and safely Republican, and the other 50% are overwhelmingly minority.
In Texas, their recent statewide elections tend to have about a 55% to 45% split, skewed toward Republicans but due to some of the worst cases of gerrymandering in the country, their congressional (9 Democrats, 23 Republicans - 28% Democrat) delegation is not reflective or representative of the 45% Democratic population.
If this is a case of judicial activism, it's activism by Republican appointed judges -- two of the three judges that voted unanimously to overturn Texas' gerrymandered congressional districts were appointed by George W. Bush.
How Texas redrew its political boundaries was watched particularly closely after the state was awarded four additional U.S. House seats because of its booming population. The surge has been driven almost entirely by minorities, who account for more than 87 percent of the population growth in Texas over the last 10 years.
Those congressional seats were split into two safely Republican districts and two safely Democratic ones. Yet in considering the congressional map as a whole, the Washington panel appeared troubled that minority lawmakers who found their former offices and "economic guts," such as stadiums and hospitals, drawn out of their new district.
Shaw v. Reno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hunt v. Cromartie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think the Federal court overturned the Voter ID laws too. The Republican law deemed to unfairly targets Blacks and Hispanics.
Separate names with a comma.