The Democrats' contempt for democracy

In your objections to the supreme court deciding the presidency, please refer to the refute link at http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11932

Thanks.

I dont think the dems have contempt for democracy,so much as they have contempt for democracy that doesnt go their way.
They have begged the 9th circuit to stop the Ca recall,even though the USSC had ruled it was legal.
They seem to want to change the rules when things arent going their way,and they seem to think their core groups are either stupid or ignorant.

The same can be said for the Republlcans. Remember the witch hunts afer the Clintons, ending with the impeachment? What about the redistircting efforts in Colorado and Texas, and the recall in California?

The recall in California is legal,and has been tried 30 times in the states history.The Dems tried to recall Reagan 4 times,and they tried to recall Pete Wilson 2 times.This is just the first time it has ever gotten this far.The USSC has said the recall laws,as written,are constitutional.Why did the Dems use the same rules,but now that those rules are used against them,they cry foul.
As for the redistricting,as far as I know every legislature has the authority to redistrict after a census.Why are the dems complaining? THey did it last time.
What the repubs did to Clinton was wrong,and I am on record as saying that.

But,the ACLU and the dems complained to the 9th circuit that minority voters would not be able to understand the ballot if the punch card system was used.That sounds like they are saying that minorities are too stupid to vote.

The dems have denied the president his right to appoint judges.They did this by asking for info that EVERY living solicitor general,including Bill Clintons,said they did NOT have the right to have,then denied the nomination because they didnt get the info.

Tell me how that equals a respect for democracy.

Well, using the recall in California as an example, the fact that it was paid for by a right wing conservative, Issa, out of his own pocket, is very suspicious. The re-districting in Texas is an attempt to re-redistrict, as is the effort in Colorado.
InColorado both sides are behaving like children, since the Democrat's lawsuit to prevent re-districting is costing big bucks that we can't really afford to spend.

There is no law about how the recall is financed.Is it your contention that the recall must be financed by the state govt.If that were the case,then the recall provision would be worthless.
Also,all that has happened is the measure has been put on the ballot.If enough people dont want the recall,it wont happen.How is that a disrespect for democracy? IMHO,that sounds like democracy in action at its finest.If Davis is so popular,then he has nothing to fear,does he.
And you are right,you got me here..."The re-districting in Texas is an attempt to re-redistrict, as is the effort in Colorado."

Since that is also the right of the legislature,again I ask...what is the problem? The dems did it when they controlled the state legislatures.Are you saying that the dems can do it,but the repubs cant?

No, I oppose the efforts of the republicans in both states to change the district maps to their liking, instead of the benefit of the states. This petty partisan bickering serves the interests of the parties, not the people.
As for Issa, he is an example of the appearance of impropriety. When one man finances a recall, that isn't democracy, its robber-baron style capitolism.

The one man that financed the recall has since DROPPED OUT.He has nothing to do with it.All he did was finance the attempt to get it on the ballot.

Which was a rare example of clear thinking!

I'm quite sick of people acting as though redistricting hasn't been going on since the flood. It happens all the time. The Dems do it just as often as the Republicans. --------
Re: Isabel. Savannah didn't come down I-16 to my little hamlet, but Hatteras Island's only highway is under three feet of sand, and what was once one island, is now three. Residents say it is a disaster, and the Outer Banks will never be the same.

I'm broken hearted. I loved that world-away-spit-of-land.

I get the distinct impression that ther Dems are unable or unwilling to accept that they no longer are The Majority Party. Faced with repudiation at The Polls, they seek refuge in the courts; "I don't like the way things are, so I'll sue". No one "Bought" the California recall, it came about as the result of widespread dissatisfaction among the voters of that state. That the Opposition Party would participate in the manuever is nothing at which to raise an eyebrow, but to blame the opposition party for the anger of the voters is stupid. In both Texas and Colorado, the redistricting devolves to the inabillity of the respective state legislatures to discharge their obligations in the matter, leaving determination of district boundaries up to the court system as opposed to resolving the matter in the manner and with the deliberative tools given them in trust by the voters of their states and by the constitutions of those states. Faced with decline, the Democrats, rather than address the disaffection of The Voter, see a "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" dedicated to their destruction. Frankly, the way I see it, with freinds like themselves, The Democrats have little need of external enemies. "The Voter" is, above all, an American. As a whole, Americans do have a soft spot for underdogs, but little tolerance for whiners. By becoming identified with court challenges to electoral and legislative process, the Democrats do themselves little service. I sense many folks begin to perceive such behavior not as inspiringly activist and democratic, but as irritatingly bitter and obstructionist. If I were a Democrat, I would be very concerned about that.

Redistricting in Texas has been done every ten years. But, just a few years after last time the Repubs decided to redistrict now. It is said they are doing so because in the coming years Hispanics will outnumber Anglos, altering Texas voting patterns in favor of Democrats. By drawing the new lines just so, the new Hispanic voters will have their voting power subverted. Naturally I don't like this and am sorely dissappointed that it is happening. If that is whining, so be it.

Quite right. The Democrats and Republicans redistrict every ten years: no more, no less. Unless, of course, you're a Republican in Colorado or Texas: then you get to do it more frequently.

I gotta disagree there, joe ... if the legislators had discharged their obligations under existing redistricting law, the matter would not now be in the courts. In nether state have the legislators themselves effected the contested districting; rather the decision has been thrown to the courts. Legislatures did not set the districts. Judges did. That's the core of the problem; the legislators not doing their job.

edgarblythe,
I agree with you completely. Has anyone seen the district lines in Texas?

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/

The maps are java based and a little quirky. The reports are pdf files.

Click on PLANC01151 for the current congressional district map.

By and large, the small districts have the largest populations of minorities. Look at district 16, which is mostly El Paso county where more than eighty percent of the population is Hispanic. El Paso county has alway gotten the short end of the stick, as it were.

The State House Districts, 78th Legislature PLANH01369 redistricting plan intends to further isolate the minorities in Texas. Compare population statistics of district 23, the present district, with what is proposed by the State House Districts, whereby 23 is divvied into about seven districts, all along ethnic/racial population lines.

Now I have to go back and look this up: If I remember correctly Texas was re-districted after the most recent cenus, now the GOP wants to do it again about eight years too soon. Am I wrong?

Right, Joe. That's one reason I'm "whining."

As to accusations that one party or the other is guilty of a particular tactic, while the other is not, cases could be adduced on either side to show that each side had done the same. I've been out of this thread since Friday afternoon, and think i've likely missed nothing of importance. The post with which this thread opened was tendencious, and the basis for the rant embodied in this screed was a strawman argument. Everything which followed from that was invalidated by the false statement of what liberalism means to those who espouse it. That same day, i saw a thread with just as eggregioius an attack on conservatives--i probably should have waded in there to point out that it was an inflamatory, tendencious screed intended slur an entire class of people, but i didn't. Perhaps i can be more virtuous in future. It stinks when either side indulges in that kind of unprovoked mud-slinging. Before anyone starts shouting about provocation, the mere fact of the existence of liberals and conservatives is not sufficient grounds for one side to slur the other.

Why should that matter? Are you suggesting that, if a legislative re-map occurs less than ten years after a judicial re-map, that the legislative re-map is somehow privileged simply because it's legislative? If the Texas Republicans have their way and redistrict this year, Timber, will that be map be unalterable until the next census, or are subsequent legislatures free to change it at their whim?

Redistricting plans have always been political footballs, ever since Elbridge Gerry devised the Gerrymander back in the early 19th century. The Illinois law, for example, is admirably designed to give decenniel redistricting to a bipartisan commission, composed of an equal number of members from both parties. Yet if the commission cannot come up with a plan acceptable to both parties, a tie-breaker commission member is chosen at random (the name is picked from a hat once worn by Abraham Lincoln -- no joke!) and the party that ends up winning that random drawing, in effect, gets carte blanche to draw the districts the way it wants. The result: the commission is always deadlocked, and the process always ends up going to the tie-breaker. Illinois, in other words, literally pulls its redistricting plan out of a hat. So for the 1990 round, the Republicans won; in 2000, the Democrats won. Both parties devised audaciously partisan re-maps: get a look at Illinois's Fourth congressional district some time (it has aptly been likened to a pair of earmuffs).

The point is, however, that once the ridiculous process concluded, both parties went back to the business of legislating. At some point, a defeated party is obligated to concede defeat.

[edited to provide link to a highly partisan but nevertheless informative website)

The point I'm makin' Joe, is that the legislators are talkin' outta their hats ... partisan politics, unsurprisingly, trumps constitutional duty. The legislators play games rather than take care of business.