June 28th, 2006 4:35 pm
I posted about this almost 3 years ago when Texas Democrats walked off the job and threw a temper tantrum because they weren’t getting their way.
Today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the congressional map engineered by Tom Delay. With the exception of a single district in southwest Texas, the court upheld the entire map.
In the lead opinion for the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We reject the statewide challenge to Texas’ redistricting as an unconstitutional political gerrymander and the challenge to the redistricting in the Dallas area as a violation of the Voting Rights Act.”
I’ll repeat the last line of my post from 3 years ago:
But the democrats in typical fashion have decided that they don’t like the outcome, so they’re just not going to show up for work. Just imagine if we all did that to our employers……
How typical is it that Democrats lose an election and resort to court challenges to try and overturn election results. It’s no wonder they want to pack the judicial branch with liberal activists. It’s a way to circumvent the electorate and ram their idiotic policies down our throats.
And yet they lost again. Maye this time they’ll challenge the ruling by fleeing… the country.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
WE SHOULD BE SO LUCKY!!!!!!
Comment by judith — 12:48 am
Modern Republicanism has degraded democracy in America.
The Court’s decision is again split on partisan lines, with the most conservative justices most approving of the Texas lines. That was also true in a 2004 case in which it upheld, by a 5-to-4 vote, a pro-Republican redistricting in Pennsylvania. But that same year the court, disturbingly, affirmed a lower court’s ruling striking down a pro-Democratic redistricting in Georgia as unconstitutional. It is disappointing that it could not have come up with a decision yesterday that had a greater appearance of fairness.
SCOTUS has indicated in the past that gerrymandering can be so egregious that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. But the court has never set out a test to determine what constitutes such a violation, and it failed to do so again yesterday.
The court has proved itself capable of thinking up elaborate tests when it wants to — it has made up standards virtually out of whole cloth, for example, to decide when Congress has infringed on states’ rights. It is disappointing that the court is not as resourceful when it comes to protecting voters’ rights. The court rightly struck down one Congressional district yesterday, citing the Voting Rights Act, but that did not begin to address the serious problems with the 2003 redistricting.
Texas’ 2003 redistricting was an extreme case. DeLay, who was then the House majority leader, led a fierce and successful campaign to capture Texas’ Legislature for the Republicans. (He is facing criminal charges of using illegal corporate campaign contributions to do it.)
Then, even though Texas had already redistricted after the 2000 census, the Legislature took the rare step of redistricting again. The new lines were drawn in such a partisan way that Republicans ended up with nearly two-thirds of the state’s Congressional delegation.
That is criminal, and now the Republicans have stooges on the Supreme Court to rubber-stamp anything they want to do…that’s why the emphasis on breaking the Supremes all these years…to turn it into a group of toadies rather than a judicial branch.
Comment by Ghost Dansing — 2:44 am
So, Ghost Dansing, as long as the Democrats with a minority of the votes got a majority of the House seats it was just fine with you. So much for representative democracy! Demonize DeLay all you like, but, on the grounds you chiefly cite, Martin Frost in Texas and Phil Burton in California should earn your condemnation as well. You sound all too like “Saint” Jimmy Carter who expects me to consider him a reasonable person when he goes around saying that he prays for the victory of Democratic candidates. I have voted for Democrats, Republicans and third party candidates for President and other offices and have never voted a straight party ticket in an election in the 40+ years I have been voting. Your anti-Republican close-mindedness is all too much the regular state of people who self-describe themselves as “progressives,” but, in an increasing number of ways, are the reactionaries of this century.
Comment by Paul from Georgia — 5:52 am
“The Court’s decision is again split on partisan lines, with the most conservative justices most approving of the Texas lines.“
Sure about that? I know your emotional reaction is to blame this on the vast right wing conspiracy, but perhaps you ought to actually read the opinion. If you had, you’d see this:
“SCOTUS has indicated in the past that gerrymandering can be so egregious that it violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause. But the court has never set out a test to determine what constitutes such a violation, and it failed to do so again yesterday.“
Probably because the number of African-American and Hispanic Texas lawmakers in Congress rose from eight to nine after the district lines were redrawn.
This wasn’t about equal protection, this was about fairness in district lines - which had been drawn in favor of the Democrats who controlled all levels of Texas government for 130 years and were finally seeing a shift in voters away from the Democrat party. And despite holding a majority of statewide elected offices, Republicans were still in the minority in congressional representation because of the democrat-gerrymandering that remained. The redrawn lines were in reflection of the shift of Texas voters.
This whole case is nothing more than democrats’ reaction to losing the faith of voters in a state long held in their favor.
“The court has proved itself capable of thinking up elaborate tests when it wants to — it has made up standards virtually out of whole cloth“
And thankfully, it appears, we have a Supreme Court that can fairly interpret the Consitution instead of acting like political activists hell bent on creating law.
“Texas’ 2003 redistricting was an extreme case. DeLay, who was then the House majority leader, led a fierce and successful campaign to capture Texas’ Legislature for the Republicans. (He is facing criminal charges of using illegal corporate campaign contributions to do it.)“
Alleged criminal charges by a partisan hack, democrat district attorney. Democrats continue to manufacture issues upon issues, then refer back to one fairytale to support the next. Of course, when the Delay case is dismissed without fanfare, I’m sure you’ll express “shock” and “surprise” that it didn’t produce fruit.
“Then, even though Texas had already redistricted after the 2000 census, the Legislature took the rare step of redistricting again. The new lines were drawn in such a partisan way that Republicans ended up with nearly two-thirds of the state’s Congressional delegation.“
Nearly two-thirds of the state also voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2004.
“That is criminal, and now the Republicans have stooges on the Supreme Court to rubber-stamp anything they want to do…that’s why the emphasis on breaking the Supremes all these years…to turn it into a group of toadies rather than a judicial branch.“
Funny, this was the same argument made in the 2000 election… before the new justices had even been nominated.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 6:31 am
“That is criminal, and now the Republicans have stooges on the Supreme Court to rubber-stamp anything they want to do…that’s why the emphasis on breaking the Supremes all these years…to turn it into a group of toadies rather than a judicial branch.”
Another one of GD’s theories down the toilet.
Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the redistricting case and now ruled against the administration in a very important case in the war on terror. Such a “rubber-stamping stooge”.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 8:56 am
Nonsense. The Republicanization SCOTUS is not yet complete, and Dubya’s actions are so flagerantly “out of the box” that they can’t be ignored.
A righteous ruling by the Supremes, and hope that the REAL America is not dead!
Comment by Ghost Dansing — 2:55 pm
So let me get this straight, GD… the SCOTUS is nothing but Republican “rubber stamp stooges” because of their ruling on Texas redistricting, but the SCOTUS isn’t Republicanized because of their ruling on Gitmo?
Did John Kerry write that for you?
Paul summed it up best in comment #3:
When you can only react to everything, you end up standing for nothing.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:29 pm
When you can only react to everything, you end up standing for nothing.
Or, in the case of Monica Lewinskey, kneeling for nothing!
Comment by Jonathan — 6:42 pm
You’re right…I thought modern Republicanism had decayed the Liberal foundations of American Democracy much worse than it apparently has.
Perhaps the excesses of this Republican administration will find the American People embracing anew the concepts of liberty and governmental structure with checks and balances. Perhaps the enthusiasm for appointing toadies instead of real judges will wane.
The dissenters were the ideologues most loved by the Bushies:
Clarence Thomas
Born: June 23, 1948
Party: Republican
Time served: 14 years, 8 months, 6 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Bush
Commissioned: October 16, 1991
Sworn in: October 23, 1991
Samuel Alito, Jr.
Party: Republican
Time served: 0 years, 4 months, 28 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Bush (43)
Commissioned: January 31, 2006
Sworn in: January 31, 2006
Antonin Scalia
Born: March 11, 1936
Party: Republican
Time served: 19 years, 9 months, 3 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Reagan
Commissioned: September 25, 1986
Sworn in: September 26, 1986
However, a Republican Justice did demonstrate that he can stand up and defy his master.
David H. Souter
Born: September 17, 1939
Party: Republican
Time served: 15 years, 8 months, 20 days
Position: associate Justice
Nominated by: Bush
Commissioned: October 3, 1990
Sworn in: October 9, 1990
Kudos to Justice Souter…a trully great American. There is hope for America.
But it is just a matter of time…this Republican administration is what the Republican Party has become…over time America will be reduced to a third-world style kleptocracy…it is best to remove all Republican politicians as soon as possible.
Comment by Ghost Dansing — 7:12 pm
GD, what a babbling brook you are. Why don’t you sign up to be on the welcoming committee for Al Quida when they come ashore. That would guarantee your removal.
Comment by judith — 9:06 pm
This has nothing to do with Al Quida…Dubya has proved himself massively incompetent in that area…I suppose we’ll know where Bin Ladin is when he interviews Dubya and Dick on his late night talk show.
The Supreme Court has struck at the core of his presidency and dismissed the notion that the president alone can determine how to defend the country. In rejecting Bush’s military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.
For many in Washington, the decision echoed not simply as a matter of law but as a rebuke of a governing philosophy of a leader who at repeated turns has operated on the principle that it is better to act than to ask permission. This ethos is why many supporters find Bush an inspiring leader, and why many critics in this country and abroad react so viscerally against him.
He asserted that in this new era, a president’s inherent constitutional authority was all that was needed. Lawmakers and judges largely deferred to him, with occasional exceptions, such as the Supreme Court two years ago when it limited the administration’s ability to detain suspects indefinitely.
“There is a strain of legal reasoning in this administration that believes in a time of war the other two branches have a diminished role or no role,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has resisted the administration’s philosophy, said in an interview. “It’s sincere, it’s heartfelt, but after today, it’s wrong.”
Comment by Ghost Dansing — 2:14 am
By the way, I suspect that once trials begin seeing the light of day the American People are going to wonder what the heck we were doing at Guantanamo in the first place.
This Republican administration actually created a big problem for itself…what do you do with all these people after 5 years…10 years…20 years, with only a make-shift process of judicial review designed for wartime expediency? Just have a French Guyana-style “Papillon-type” penal colony ad infinitum? The questions were bound to arise stemming from pragmatic issues if not legal ones.
Comment by Ghost Dansing — 2:24 am
The same Lindsey Graham issued a joint statement with Jon Kyl that said:
So this all may just be a matter of formalities. And perhaps all along was a strategy of the administration. They’ve been able to keep these terrorists locked up this long, now it will be years before they’re able to process them for trial or return to their home countries and by then the Congress will have time to redraft legislation fixing the issues the SCOTUS raised. So the goal is accomplished anyway… keeping terrorists locked up so they can’t come to your office and kill you and 2,900 co-workers… again.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:57 am