thank you very much, hobitbob.........see, I knew it.
When this administration talks about democracy, what they really seem to be referring to is free market capitalism, ca. 1870. Considering the assaults this group has made on civil liberties, social services, and internatioal diplomacy, don't you find it odd how often they refer to "freedom,"and "democracy?" Their view of these principles seems similar to FAUX' own relationship with the words "fair" and "balanced." They will use them, but don't wish to bothered by definitions.
Setana- We shall see what happens in Texas. The meeting of the legislature is Monday. If the vote to redraw the Districts passes, that's all she wrote----The Democrats will lose five or six seats in the DC House.
That's Realpolitik.
However, some of the left wingers who vaguely complain of the "terrible" "awful" "horrible" things the Republicans have done to civil liberties( that's what Hobitbob said) won't tell you that the Patriot Act was a Legislative Act, Presidents don't pass Legislative Acts, the House and the Senate do.
Well, the Senate( which had, I believe50 Democrats at the time) PASSED the Patriot Act, 98-1.
If Professor Hobibit is going to complain about the "erosion" of civil liberties, he is obliged( if he believes in accuracy) to excoriate the 48 Democratic Senators who voted for the Patriot Act.
IG, if you wanna slam HB, do it directly, don't address me in the process.
Italgato wrote:Setana- We shall see what happens in Texas. The meeting of the legislature is Monday. If the vote to redraw the Districts passes, that's all she wrote----The Democrats will lose five or six seats in the DC House.
Not nearly 'all she wrote'.
The Democrats will transfer this battle to the courts, which decided the plot of Congressional districts in 2001.
The battle will likely still be unsettled in time for the 2004 elections due to violations of the Voting Rights Act; specifically the disenfranchisement of minorities by the Republican-gerrymandered maps.
As you are so fond of saying, 'we shall see.'
I doubt the Democrats will achieve any greater success for their failed agenda in the judicial arena than in the electoral arena ... loose at the polls so sue the victor in court? That's not the way I read the Constitution.
Timber,
This is not losing at the polls. This is Republican dirty tricks. And I don't see why the courts won't see it that way too. It's a blatant power play, intended to leave out the voter and manipulate the voter's map to fit the Republican agenda. The voter districts are based on the census and should not be changed until there's another census. I can't believe you think this has anything to do with the voters having a voice.
PDiddie wrote:timberlandko wrote: loose (sic) at the polls so sue the victor in court? That's not the way I read the Constitution.
Well, you know, that's kinda the way a majority of folks across this great land felt at the end of 2000.
Bet you weren't one of them then, though, were ya?
Your right. Gore should never have brought the case to court.
PDiddie wrote:McGentrix wrote:PDiddie wrote:timberlandko wrote: loose (sic) at the polls so sue the victor in court? That's not the way I read the Constitution.
Well, you know, that's kinda the way a majority of folks across this great land felt at the end of 2000.
Bet you weren't one of them then, though, were ya?
Your
(sic) right. Gore should never have brought the case to court.
And I'm sure we know now where you stand on Texas redistricting, McG....
aawww...
I mis-spelled something...
Actually, I am very much against gerrymandering. Voting districts should be based on property lines such as county lines, etc.
So, if that's what you thought, then I guess you do.
A laudable position to take on districting, McG, and one which i saddly believe will never obtain in this country. Neither party is interested in a solution which removes from them the opportunity to stack the deck.
There's something to be said for districting along established administrative boundaries ... but then, by whom and by what means should those lines be determined? A multi-hundred-square-mile county in Texas could well contain fewer people, and of much less diverse demographic makeup, than a few-square-block neighborhood in any major city in any state. The fact is that the current districting in Texas was established by a panel of Federal judges in 1991, when it became evident the Texas Legislature was unwilling or unable to resolve the every-ten-year chore, as established by State Constitution, on its own. It would appear the same thing may be about to happen; a panel of three Federal judges is at this moment considering the matter anew. If the Texas Legislature is incapable of discharging its duties, perhaps the body ought to be abolished and the state be made a Federal Protectorate. Silly, of course, but so is the inabillity to resolve the conflict.
timberlandko wrote:There's something to be said for districting along established administrative boundaries ... but then, by whom and by what means should those lines be determined? A county in Utah could well contain fewer people, and of much less diverse demographic makeup, than a neighborhood in any major city. The fact is that the current districting in Texas was established by a panel of Federal judges in 1991, when it became evident the Texas Legislature was unwilling or unable to resolve the every-ten-year chore, as established by State Constitution, on its own. It would appear the same thing may be about to happen; a panel of three Federal judges is at this moment considering the matter anew. If the Texas Legislature is incapable of discharging its duties, perhaps the body ought to be abolished and the state be made a Federal Protectorate. Silly, of course, but so is the inabillity to resolve the conflict.
Those lines are already established. All that needs to be settled would be a minimum population per representative...as it is now. Then, if you have 4 counties with the same population as one, then you get 2 representatives... I am sure it can get much more complicated, but that is my simplistic solution.
Good points, McG ... and quick, too ... you quoted me while I was changing "Utah" to "Texas" and correcting a couple misspellings
If we start worrying about misspellings, then we don't have enough to talk about.
Or maybe Texas should just go ahead and secede from the Union. Then GW could come on home where he belongs and be the President of Texas. Then he and Rumsfeld and Rove could spin and go it alone in God's country. Interesting fantasy.
I give you "President of McLennan County," Lola, but not all of Texas. "President of McLennan County" is perfect, has a kind of Judge Roy Bean implication -- you know, that eccentric Texas shtick! I can see a jokey movie made about him in and around Waco. Marcia Gay Harden playing Laura, etc. etc. Spurs and brush-cuttin'. Narration by Jim Hightower.
Hell -- we could retire Rick Perry right quick so's he could play Bush!!
Laughing, Tartarin..........very funny. It would suit him exactly.
