2
   

The Lefty Boom

Forums: Politics, Liberals, Left
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:20 pm
Texas has the right to separate into 5 states. The quaint notion that they can withdraw from the union should have been, but wasn't disabused somewhere around 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:28 pm
If my memory serves me, around 1965 it was being talked about also. Wasn't there another Texan in the WH about that time also?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:31 pm
roger wrote:
Texas has the right to separate into 5 states. The quaint notion that they can withdraw from the union should have been, but wasn't disabused somewhere around 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse.


I started a thread about this, rog. It's here.

Our eminent legal scholar, joefromchicago, debunks the idea as matter of constitutionality, but my hunch is Texas could pull it off if it reallllly wanted to.

(joe's only fallacy as I see it is that he thinks the Cubs have a chance to win the NL Central this year...sorry, joe :wink:)
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:39 pm
In Colorado, the fight over re-districting is likely to chew through $250 million, according to today's paper. This is at a time when our budget can barely pay for anything. You can't even blame it all on one party, either. The Republicans pushed through the new map after another one ahd already been put through, but the Democrats avoided administrative solutions to the problem and opted for a battle in the state Supreme court, that would be higher publicity. It's the blonde leading the blind!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:42 pm
But, from what I understand - Colorado is still solvent. One of the better states at this point in time. Still, no one needs political spending bs during these times Smile
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:45 pm
Solvent, but due to TABOR (which I didn't vote for, I was elsewhere, it wasn't my fault) sinking fast.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:48 pm
Ya know, we never had problems like this when we were ruled by priest-kings ... mebbe progress ain't all its cracked up to be.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:51 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Ya know, we never had problems like this when we were ruled by priest-kings ... mebbe progress ain't all its cracked up to be.

And how do you think your darling sees himself? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 01:56 pm
He ain't muh darlin' by a longshot, hobitbob ... its just that the currently proposed alternatives give me even less comfort. "Better the thief you know ... ", and all that.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:03 pm
Glad you dropped the hypen our of misspell and all it's forms or that could go on ad infinitum.
There is a spell check on the post reply page.

Otherwise, I totally agree about taking the districting out of the political machinery. It'll never happen, of course, because the politicians won't be happy if they can't play their petty little games.
They love to show off and grandstand for publicity, each and every one of them. They are more shameless than Hollywood stars.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:03 pm
(Making Ronald Reagan the most shameless).
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:04 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Our eminent legal scholar, joefromchicago, debunks the idea as matter of constitutionality, but my hunch is Texas could pull it off if it reallllly wanted to.

(joe's only fallacy as I see it is that he thinks the Cubs have a chance to win the NL Central this year...sorry, joe :wink:)


I believe I presented my prediction of the Cubs going to the world series as a "hope" rather than as a probability -- although for life-long Cubs fans such as myself it's true that the line between hope and delusion is often a blurry one (made even more so, no doubt, by the consumption of too many Old Styles).
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:06 pm
oic. Thanks PDiddie
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:09 pm
Did someone mention solvents? This may be what's wrong with thief we know......how much worse could it be?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:19 pm
Lola wrote:
Did someone mention solvents? This may be what's wrong with thief we know......how much worse could it be?


Well, we could have been stuck with Gore. That would have been worse.

I think I may vote dem in the next election just so I can bitch about the president...
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:24 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I think I may vote dem in the next election just so I can bitch about the president...


You think we're enjoying having to do all this bitching?

Bitching's a bitch... Cool

(edit: amended for emoticon to communicate appropriate satire)
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:25 pm
Yeah, I think there is a certain amount of enjoyment involved. Just like I find a certain level of enjoyment defending the president.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 02:27 pm
Ah, ya don't have ta go that far, McG ... but if its the way things are done in your state, ya could always register as a Democrat and support Sharpton or Kucinich in your Primary Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 03:41 pm
Texas Democrat's court challenge dismissed in total:

The Court just wrote:

In the Matter of 5:03cv113 Barrientos, et al v. State of Texas, et al ...

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting (10-1) motion to dismiss. We also DISMISS claims under 42 USC 1983, insofar as Plaintiffs claim that the State's decision to consider redistricting legislation and the failure to adhere to the "2/3rd Rule" violate the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Ammendments to the United States Constitution. We also withhold ruling on the Plaintiffs' motion to file a first ammended complaint. The purpose of the ammendment is to add a Count V, complaining of threats against the Plaintiffs and also to require that they pay a monetary sanction for their failure to appear at earlier special sessions ...


... Entered Spt 12, 2003. Parties Notified.
Signed: U.S. Circuit Court Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham, Chief U.S. District Judge George P. Kazen, and U.S. District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal

So, now its lead, follow, or get out of the way.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Sep, 2003 04:12 pm
Your bold caps notwithstanding, this development was expected.

The special session starts Monday, 9/15 at which time a quorum will be present.

By tradition, the Senate will present a "blocker" bill, requiring (again by custom) a two-thirds majority, but because Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has indicated that he will revise that to a simple majority, the Senate will then consider redistricting.

And barring any surprise, pass it.

Then it will go to the federal courts for a hearing on its impact on minority representation.

All this is in the thread on the topic. The one I linked here previously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Lefty Boom
  3. » Page 24
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 3.46 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:42:08
▲ ▼