Dimm-o-craps lose another One (Delay win)

[xrayzebra]

Top court upholds most of Texas redistricting plan
Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:42 AM ET



By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld most of a bitterly contested Texas congressional map engineered by then-Rep. Tom DeLay to help solidify Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Although the justices refused to overturn the entire map, they ruled that one district in southwestern Texas violated the federal voting rights law.

The Supreme Court's decision upholding most of the redistricting plan could make it harder for Democrats to win control of the 435-seat House in the November elections.

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."

The redistricting plan had been challenged by Democrats, minority groups and others who argued the 2003 plan had been motivated by unconstitutional political purposes.

(Additional reporting by Deborah Charles)



================================================== =======

What do they do now? Cry me a river, I cant wait to hear all the
spin you libs put on this one.

[Crookshanks]

Hmm - all I hear are crickets - where are all the rabid libs who were screaming for Delay's head.

It's just another step towards total vindication for Delay.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah, really strange how quite it gets in here sometimes.

[xrayzebra]

Just a little humor: all for boutons.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44894

[clambake]

What do you expect? It's texas, where the redneck shines big and bright. I guess trying to block the minority vote is better than lynching.

[boutons_]

There will be no total vindication of DeLay.

It's funny you Red, While And Blue Flag-wavers are gung-ho for gerrymandering to disenfranchise American citizens, as long as it's in your favor. Fucking hypocrits.

[Crookshanks]

Well, the media is doing its best to portray this as a defeat for Republicans. I just heard on the news this exact quote

"Texas will have to redraw their districts now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the current districts violate voting rights."

Only ONE district was ruled as a violation - yet they make it seem like it's all of them! And they wonder why people don't trust the media?!

[clambake]

Promise me you'll never leave Texas!

[xrayzebra]

What do you expect? It's texas, where the redneck shines big and bright. I guess trying to block the minority vote is better than lynching.


The first, it doesn't matter. We are still right!

[xrayzebra]

There will be no total vindication of DeLay.

It's funny you Red, While And Blue Flag-wavers are gung-ho for gerrymandering to dienfranchise American citizens, as long as it's in your favor. Fucking hypocrits.


The second, it doesn't matter we are still right!

[xrayzebra]

Well, the media is doing its best to portray this as a defeat for Republicans. I just heard on the news this exact quote

"Texas will have to redraw their districts now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the current districts violate voting rights."

Only ONE district was ruled as a violation - yet they make it seem like it's all of them! And they wonder why people don't trust the media?!

Yep and the one being a "minority" Republican right in here in San Antonio,
Bonilla.
:lol

[xrayzebra]

Promise me you'll never leave Texas!

Itr depends, where did you say you live. I might like it there.
:lol

[clambake]

You wouldn't like it here. Not enough GOP programmed robots.

[xrayzebra]

You wouldn't like it here. Not enough GOP programmed robots.

I could change that.
:lol

[clambake]

You'd be surprised with the amount of change that comes from escaping the state of texas.

You might aquire a thought of your own. A thought not based on what you think your parents would approve.

[FromWayDowntown]

I could change that.

With your incisve rhetoric, your independently-constructed arguments, and your willingness to engage those who disagree with you, no doubt.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm excited that ,not only can you re-draw district boundries at any time, the SC says it's ok. I am surprised to hear the same cons who whined about activist judges are ok with this type of activism.. hey wait a minute that means cons are hypocrites!!

[ChumpDumper]

How could anyone still support Delay?

The main Constitutional question was pretty cut-and-dry, IMO.

Gerrymandering is all Republicans have to rely on to keep the House this fall, along with the hoped-for bounce from limited troop withdrawl from Iraq (the worst kept October surprise ever), so I can see how X and Crook like those perversions of congressional districts.

[xrayzebra]

How could anyone still support Delay?

The main Constitutional question was pretty cut-and-dry, IMO.

Gerrymandering is all Republicans have to rely on to keep the House this fall, along with the hoped-for bounce from limited troop withdrawl from Iraq (the worst kept October surprise ever), so I can see how X and Crook like those perversions of congressional districts.

Ah yes, and who started the "gerrymandering" to suit their purposes. Well
except when it doesn't. :lol

How bout, all men created equal, we split everything up even like, and
everyone has the same rights. Would you go for that? We don't reserve
certain districts for the "minorities". Everyman for himself, regardless of
race. I would go for that.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah yes, and who started the "gerrymandering" to suit their purposes.The first state legislature that ever existed in the US, I imagine.
How bout, all men created equal, we split everything up even like, and
everyone has the same rights. Would you go for that? We don't reserve
certain districts for the "minorities". Everyman for himself, regardless of
race. I would go for that.So you're against gerrymandering after saying you are for it and celebrating it? Make up your mind.

[Crookshanks]

^^Amen to that! Just draw the bounderies like counties, instead of like jigsaw puzzles. I've never understood that whole practice. If a congressman is not able to adequately represent his district, then he or she gets voted out - plain and simple. And this goes for BOTH parties.

[xrayzebra]

I play by the rules of the game. So should those who made the rules up. You don't
change them in the middle of a game.

Of course you didn't answer the question posed. But no matter I know your answer.
I told you what I was for.

Got to go. I will be back and play with you kids later.

[ChumpDumper]

I play by the rules of the game. So should those who made the rules up. You don't
change them in the middle of a game.But that's exactly what was done in Texas. So you are for gerrymandering.

Congratulations.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's amazing how the Supreme Court is perfectly reasonable and a bastion of American democracy when it's issuing rulings that favor the Right, but is an insufferable den of judicial activists when it's issuing rulings that don't favor the Right.

Consistency!

[clubalien]

Well, the media is doing its best to portray this as a defeat for Republicans. I just heard on the news this exact quote

"Texas will have to redraw their districts now that the Supreme Court has ruled that the current districts violate voting rights."

Only ONE district was ruled as a violation - yet they make it seem like it's all of them! And they wonder why people don't trust the media?!
you got to keep in mind if one district is wrong to fix it they have to add or remove land from OTHEr districts

so what happens if one piece is wrong the way they correct it is to redraw it well tell me how do you redraw a district if you cannot use the land and people from the surounding districts? that is right you CANNOT!!!

therefore if one piece is wrong they have to redraw the whole map. now some districts might stay the same but who knows.

[spurster]

Gerrymandering is ruining the House of Representatives, which is supposed to be "close" to the people. Almost all the districts have been drawn to be safe Republican or safe Democrat, so they end up being more right or more left than where most people are.

As for Delay winning, he apparently has been chased out of Texas to Virginia.

[exstatic]

This is proof that the Voting Rights Act needs to be renewed AS IS, with the extra scrutiny on certain Southern states, for example, Texas, left intact. They've proved they need the oversight.

[Ocotillo]

Oops, you may want to recork that champagne Ray. :lol

link (http://www.swingstateproject.com/2006/06/tx22_tomfoolery.php)

Tomfoolery Backfires?

Posted by James L.

You've got to hand it to Tom DeLay. Facing abysmal chances in the November election against former Rep. Nick Lampson, DeLay took the opportunity to fall on his own sword by slinking off to Virginia in an attempt to give the TX GOP another window to nominate someone a little less, oh, you know, indicted. Even in (political) death, he never ceased to miss a chance to sock a Democrat in the stomach. You've got to give him that, at least.

Given that a party cannot nominate a new candidate after a primary election in Texas, DeLay chose a legal loophole: get the hell out of dodge so that he would be ineligible to run for Congress in Texas, rather than withdrawing his candidacy (which would have spelled the end for the Republican line on the TX-22 ballot). Texas Dems didn't take this sitting down, and filed a lawsuit to block the local GOP from scrubbing DeLay's name from the ballot. The conventional wisdom was that this was a stall tactic designed to irritate the local Republican cabal and prevent them from naming a challenger and raising funds for a few more precious weeks. However, based on the commentary of U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, presiding over the case, it looks like there's a strong chance that DeLay may be forced to keep his name on the ballot (or withdraw it at his discretion). From the Houston Chronicle: (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/4004711)


A federal judge hearing a ballot dispute Monday involving former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay said he thinks that DeLay withdrew from the November election, indicating potential trouble for Republicans who want to name a replacement candidate.

"He is not going to participate in the election and he withdrew," said U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, who did not issue an official ruling after a daylong trial regarding DeLay's status as the GOP nominee for the 22nd Congressional District.

Jim Bopp, a lawyer for the Republican Party of Texas, disagreed, telling Sparks "there's been no withdrawal." Bopp said that instead, DeLay moved to Virginia, making him ineligible and triggering a state law that allows the party to select a new nominee.

Sparks also said that if political parties are allowed to replace primary election winners with more popular candidates, "the abuse would be incredible."

"It can happen in every race in this state for every office," Sparks said. The Republican judge said a ruling could come as early as next week.


From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/14912770.htm)


In his comments to lawyers, Sparks questioned whether a ruling for the Republicans might set a precedent allowing weakened candidates from both parties taking up short-term residency in other states so that a more formidable campaigner could be installed late in the game.

[...]

Sparks said he would review the histories of any similar cases and closely study the language in the Constitution before handing down his ruling. But he also said there was little doubt that DeLay had intended to withdraw from the race and that GOP leaders were hoping for a stronger candidate in the fall.

"Sometimes, you better watch out what you ask for," he told the GOP lawyer.




Sparks doesn't seem to be buying the spin that DeLay didn't withdraw. This could turn out to be a colossal embarrassment for national and state Republicans, and would have our homeboy, Nick Lampson, sitting mighty pretty.

[Ocotillo]

Oh and the SCOTUS ruling is not any sort of vindication for the Snake, er the Hammer. His legal difficulties loom large yet and this guy could be looking at some jail time.

The SCOTUS ruling simply gives free reign to state leges to redraw districts whenever they damn well feel like it. Ohio for instance is controlled by Republicans but could switch to the Dems this election. If they do, agenda one needs to be redrawing the lines. Careful what you wish for indeed Tom.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit. There might be a useful Amendment to the Constitution that eventually comes out of this.

[xrayzebra]

Oh, really, I thought we had all these problems about drawing lines. Now I find,
according to the above, it is about Delay.

How about the judge, liberal judge, who ruled that he just withdrew. Now that is
okay. Right?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, really, I thought we had all these problems about drawing lines. Now I find,
according to the above, it is about Delay.

How about the judge, liberal judge, who ruled that he just withdrew. Now that is
okay. Right?The judge that was appointed by Bushie's daddy?

[xrayzebra]

He was? How bout that. Try to pacify the other folks and see what you get.

[Zoe String]

Gerrymandering has gone on for a couple of centuries. What is different now is that computer models are so precise that the drawing of districts is nearly an exact science.

[fyatuk]

Oh and the SCOTUS ruling is not any sort of vindication for the Snake, er the Hammer. His legal difficulties loom large yet and this guy could be looking at some jail time.

The SCOTUS ruling simply gives free reign to state leges to redraw districts whenever they damn well feel like it. Ohio for instance is controlled by Republicans but could switch to the Dems this election. If they do, agenda one needs to be redrawing the lines. Careful what you wish for indeed Tom.

In Ohio isn't the districting determined by a private company contracted by the state? I know a few states do that and there's been a push for more states to switch to that method instead of allowing the legislature to do it.

[boutons_]

Effort to Secure Texas Led to Fall Of Tom DeLay
But Ex-Lawmaker Calls Ruling 'Victory'

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006; A04

Tom DeLay's dogged quest for a new congressional map for Texas led to a disciplinary slap from the House ethics committee, his indictment on money-laundering charges, his fall from the House leadership ranks and, this month, his resignation from Congress.

But the former House majority leader proclaimed yesterday that the Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of his legislative map affirmed his contention that partisan power is reason enough to muscle through new congressional district lines.

"This is a victory for the Constitution and a victory for the people of Texas," DeLay said in an interview. "It shows if you follow the Constitution and the state legislatures do their job as dictated by the Constitution, you'll have the right political representation in the Congress."

( while disenfranchising 1000s of voters. )

DeLay's philosophical arguments may have prevailed, but as a practical matter, the high court ruling will have no bearing on his criminal case, and his redistricting effort will not survive unscathed. The Supreme Court's two-pronged decision means that the map DeLay secured in 2003 will have to be changed, and lawyers in Texas say that it could be changed significantly.

The justices ruled that the redrawing of Texas Rep. Henry Bonilla's 23rd District strengthened the Republican's grasp on his seat by diluting Latino voters' power and violating the Voting Rights Act. Remedying that infraction will affect at least three districts and, possibly, many others, said Nina Perales, the Southwestern counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which argued the case.

A three-judge panel in Texas will have to decide in the coming weeks how to redraw those lines, and "there's no way you can do a little fixing of Bonilla's district without creating big ripple effects," said Richard Gladden, a Denton, Tex., lawyer involved in the case. "There's not a chance" DeLay's map will remain intact.

But the political arguments that drove DeLay's efforts were upheld on a 7 to 2 vote, a defeat for Democrats who had contended that district lines could not be redrawn for purely partisan purposes.

"All I can say is, the Supreme Court ruled on his plan and held it to be constitutional except for in one district out of 32," said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Tex.), whose district abuts Bonilla's. "I guess that speaks for itself."

In 2002, after a federal court had redrawn a congressional map based on the 2000 Census, the Lone Star State sent 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to Congress. Statewide, Texas had been trending heavily Republican, and DeLay decided that the House delegation should reflect that trend. He and his political action committees pumped tens of thousands of dollars into state elections in 2002 to win Republican control of the Texas legislature.

That fundraising led to DeLay's indictment in September on corporate money laundering charges and to his resignation from the House leadership.

In 2003, at DeLay's urging, the legislature and Gov. Rick Perry (R) redrew the congressional map in three special sessions. Democratic legislators tried to thwart the effort, at one point fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the legislature a quorum. The House ethics committee rebuked DeLay for using the Federal Aviation Administration to track down a private plane that was shuttling Democrats out of the state.

The following year, the redistricting had its desired effect. Texas Republicans gained six seats in the House and a seventh when Rep. Ralph M. Hall switched parties rather than run as a Democrat in a far more Republican district.

But DeLay paid a huge personal price. With his Texas criminal case dragging on, he renounced his leadership post early this year. Then, with his legal jeopardy rising in the unrelated Jack Abramoff corruption probe, he resigned from the House, which he had dominated for more than a decade.

Still, he said he was heartened by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling.

"It's always worth it to stand up for the Constitution," DeLay said.

( Repug partisan gains DO NOT EQUAL the Constitution

Typical fog and spin and outright Repug lies. Burn in hell, asshole )



© 2006 The Washington Post Company