- Thread starter
- #61
We have very different views on the abilities of the judicial branch to leave political views out of the decision making process. While I have great respect for the legal profession in general, and would love to see the corruption of political influence taken from it's ranks.
The Supreme Court upheld most of Texas's Republican-drafted 2003 congressional redistricting plan yesterday in a ruling that could prompt majority parties in other states to redraw political maps to their advantage.
The endorsement of the plan, which former House majority leader Tom DeLay crafted to tilt Texas's congressional delegation to the GOP, was not absolute. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that a sprawling West Texas district represented by Henry Bonilla (R) violates the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voting power of Latinos.
Front of the U.S. Supreme Court building. The Court on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, upheld most of the 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. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) (Manuel Balce Ceneta - AP)
More on the Story
Texas Redistricting: The case League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Rick Perry et al. challenges the 2003 congressional redistricting plan in Texas led by former Rep. Tom DeLay (R). The plan was designed to give Texas's House delegation a Republican majority. Opponents of the plan say it is so partisan that it violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
High Court to Decide Campaign Finance Cases, The Post, Sept. 28, 2005
Campaign Finance Cases Weighed, The Post, March 1, 2006
Special Report: DeLay Indicted
From FindLaw
Ruling: League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Rick Perry et al.
Appellate Decision (PDF)
Complaint (PDF): (Sessions, et al. v. Perry, et al.) (Oct. 12, 2003)
Complaint (PDF): (Jackson, et al. v. Texas, et al.) (Oct. 12, 2003)
Interactive Map of Texas Districts: (From Texas Legislative Council) (Oct. 12, 2003)
Transcript
Court Upholds Much of Texas Redistricting
University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor Nathaniel Persily discusses the Supreme Court's ruling yesterday in the controversial Texas Congressional redistricting case.
Bench Conference
Andrew Cohen blogs multiple times daily about the latest legal developments and issues.
Goodbye to All That
Jose Padilla Finally Catches a Break
Don't Cry for John Yoo
More Bench Conference
Sign Up for RSS Feed
Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Red State Diaries
Democracy for New Mexico
New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan
Full List of Blogs (144 links) »
Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web
Save & Share
Tag This Article
Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Subheadline
Byline
2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Subheadline Blurb None
3. Tag This Article
But seven justices rejected at least part of the opponents' broadest contention: that the entire Texas plan is unconstitutional because the legislature rewrote a previous court-drawn map, three years after the most recent census, out of nothing more than a desire for Republican advantage.
The seven justices gave widely varying reasons for rejecting the constitutional challenge, and the court did not quite say that no such challenge could ever succeed.
But with six justices producing 123 pages of opinions, without any five of them able to agree on how to define an unconstitutional gerrymander, politicians of both parties said that the ruling leaves the door wide open to attempts to copy the DeLay strategy in other states.
"Every redistricting is a partisan political exercise, but this is going to put it at a level we have never seen," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "That's the gift that the Supreme Court and Tom DeLay have given us."
Justices Affirm GOP Map For Texas
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to your assesment that the courts do not bring political views into the decision making process. The courts history and this is just the high court is replete with decisions that are based on the appointees political views. That being said, the argurment that the court needs to retain these lifetime appointments to somehow make sure that they remain impartial does not hold sway at least with me it doesn't. Theother arguement that at least IMO that you made is that because laws are somehow ambiguous and require the deft touch of a legal mind that the average lay person would not understand therefor the opinions of the lay person are somehow dismissed when it comes to the courts also does not work. It assumes that the lay person is incapable of critical thinking, while this may be true for some , I can assure you when I make a statement like " legislate from the bench" I do not just spout it off without some well reasoned thought behind it. While, the inner workings of the legal profession of course require a trained legal professional and I don't doubt that for one moment, the fact that a judge is appointed to the bench and is in that profession does not give them immunity from opinions from the lay community.
