SCOTUS Rules On Texas Redistricting

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Jun 28, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Mixed ruling:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060628/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_texas_redistricting
     
  2. CSM
    Offline

    CSM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    708
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Northeast US
    Ratings:
    +708
    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.
     
  3. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    It means the Dems won't admit they lost, despite their hysterics and hiding in Oklahoma to protest DeLay's hardball politics. :boohoo:
     
  4. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    "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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    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.

    acludem
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    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.
     
  7. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    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.

    acludem
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,542
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,157
    Largely Democratic latinos? Since when were latinos largely Democrat?
     
  9. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    And the Democrats didn't do the same thing in 1991? :rolleyes:

    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!". :gives:
     
  10. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    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.
     

Share This Page