Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jun 28, 2006.
What is really humorous is comparing the headline for this story on the various news sites....you can really get a feel for who is biased by doing that. Makes you laugh too. Everyhting from "Court KOs part of Texas Redistricting" (MSNBC) to "High Court Upholds Most of TEXAS Redistricting" (CNN). So far, in none of the stories have I been able to ascertain exactly what was not upheld, though every story says (if you read into it far enough) admits that whatever it was, it wasn't all that big a deal. Almost every story also hints that this is a "minor" victory for the Dems...whatever that means.
It means the Dems won't admit they lost, despite their hysterics and hiding in Oklahoma to protest DeLay's hardball politics.
"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."
WTF?!? Since when do Hispanics, or any other race, have the right to "elect a candidate of their choosing??" I am totally against the school of thought that says that only Hispanics can represent Hispanics, or only blacks can represent blacks, or that only whites can represent whites. Racial quotas in Congress are no less discriminatory than racial quotas elsewhere. This part of the ruling is shameful.
The ruling said you can't, as the Republicans did, intentionally dilute minority voting pools in redistricting. it didn't say anything about quotas. The Republicans essentially set a maximum quotas on latinos in a district, that's a violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Tom DeLay is the single greatest example of corruption and political skullduggery other than Karl Rove in recent history.
What I'm saying is that race should not be a factor in Congressional district drawing, period. If that takes changing the Voting Rights Act, then we should change it. The government should be racially colorblind.
That's essentially what the court said as well. Republicans specifically gerrymandered largely Democratic Latinos out of a certain district to be sure a Republican wins it. That's using race as a factor in redistricting. The court said that you can't do that.
Largely Democratic latinos? Since when were latinos largely Democrat?
And the Democrats didn't do the same thing in 1991?
Obviously according to the Court the Republican redistricting was just as legal as the Democrat redistricting was - with a couple minor exceptions. Maybe we should go back and take another look at the 1991 gerrymandering to find the Democrat exceptions?
Whenever the Dems lose they scream "race!".
The particulars of this case might justify a redrawing if Delay intentionally redrew district lines inorder to deny latinos suffrage (not saying that he did; I don't know the particulars of this case), but in general, I totally agree with you.
Okay, so your basically saying that if the Republicans intentionally gerrymandered Texas' congressional districts inorder to disenfrancise voters, it's alright with you because the democrats might have done the same 10 years ago?
Sorry, I'm not buying that. No party, regardless of the situation, should be allowed to gerrymander congressional districts in their own favor even if the other party did the same at an earlier date. Two wrongs don't make a right. Congressional districts should be established an independent, bipartisan state commission to ensure that distinct, equal population, geographically based districts are formed. That's what the voters deserve.
Separate names with a comma.