29-04-2005 02:34									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

alea jacta est.
sic transit gloria mundi

	29-04-2005 03:19									#62
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Q, you earned this for that brutal pimpslap of Ned:

	29-04-2005 03:58									#63
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin I also think Tom Delay is a dirt bag for gerrymandering all of the Congressional districts in TexaS IN order to prevent fair elections. There is winning elections because you have better ideas and then there is corruptly rigging everything in order to prevent competitive elections. Unfortunately, such a miscarrage of democracy isn't illegal in this country.

Um... why weren't you up in arms when the Dems did this for close to 100 years? Is it just because it's Delay?

The Texas Republican gerrymandering is no worse than what the Dems did before. What goes around, comes around.

	29-04-2005 04:03									#64
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The Texas Republican gerrymandering is no worse than what the Dems did before. What goes around, comes around.

Actually, it was, as the Republicans "broke the rules" by gerrymandering outside of the normal time frame. It was mandated that redistricting was only done every 10 years, after a census. The Repubs up and decided to redistrict 2 years later, which is something the Dems had never done and is precisely why they were up in arms over it. Just another example of how the rules need not apply for Delay & Co.

	29-04-2005 04:06									#65
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Actually, it was, as the Republicans "broke the rules" by gerrymandering outside of the normal time frame. It was mandated that redistricting was only done every 10 years, after a census. The Repubs up and decided to redistrict 2 years later, which is something the Dems had never done and is precisely why they were up in arms over it. Just another example of how the rules need not apply for Delay & Co.

Yeah, it's something the Dems haven't done, because they CONTROLED THE GOVERNMENT since the late 1800s! They never had to do so!

The Republicans came to power for the first time in decades and said, lets give the Dems a taste of their own medicine. More power to 'em. There is no federal law saying redistricting ONLY has to occur after the census. It has just become tradition.

	29-04-2005 04:08									#66
	Tired of ads?

what about changing the house of reps to proportional national representation? but that would need a constitutional amendment.

	29-04-2005 04:12									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yep... you couldn't get around that except with an amendment. It'd probably never happen. First, it seems too alien. Second, a lot of people like knowing their rep represents their little area and would prefer it to 5 reps representing a much larger area.

	29-04-2005 04:17									#68
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui There is no federal law saying redistricting ONLY has to occur after the census. It has just become tradition.

That's not the point. It was mandated as such under Texas house rules, but the GOP decided to ignore those rules and do their own game.

Redistricting after every census makes sense, as you have to reflect the demographics. Redistricting willy-nilly whenever you feel it will give you the optimum political advantage is just dumb, as it will just tell the opposing party to do the same when they return to power. So it's a total **** move.

	29-04-2005 07:12									#69
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov That's not the point. It was mandated as such under Texas house rules, but the GOP decided to ignore those rules and do their own game.

Wrong, amateur lawyer, the rule was not invovled since the legislature had failed to do said resdistricting in the first session.

	29-04-2005 07:16									#70
	Suffering from ads?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/m.../tex2-m15.shtml

The redistricting had been done already by a nonpartisan panel in 2000, so another one wasn't due until 2010.

And nobody said it was a legal issue, it was an issue of standard practice and policies. The GOP blatantly violated longstanding tradition for a power grab, thus opening the floodgates for retaliation when the pendulum swings the other way.

Last edited by Boris Godunov on 29-04-2005 at 07:21

	29-04-2005 07:22									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

DP edit

	29-04-2005 07:23									#72
	Remove this text

The was the panel of judges after the legislature failed to pass a plan. The legislature rules only apply the actions of the legislature, twit. The court having made a plan does not count as the legislature having passed a plan. The legislature has duly passed only one redistricting plan since the census. You could have firuged that out, even from a crappy article the world socialist website.

	29-04-2005 07:25									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The GOP blatantly violated longstanding tradition for a power grab, thus opening the floodgates for retaliation when the pendulum swings the other way.

Again totally ignoring the possibility that this itself was payback for 40+ years of gerrymandering by the Dems, eh Boris?

Not that that makes it right, but let's shed a little historical perspective on this.

	29-04-2005 07:28									#74
	Suffering from ads?

And the court passing the plan was a perfectly legitimate way for it to be accomplished under Texas law, given the legislative failure to act. Nothing in the rules says otherwise. If the courts hadn't any jurisdiction, then you might have a point, but otherwise, you don't.

Redistricting isn't mandated for the purposes of partisan politics (though it's used as such), it's mandated to more accurately reflect the demographics of the state. So it doesn't matter if the GOP "missed out on their chance" in 2000 or not. Doing an end-run around the established precedent, while legal, was still a blatant power grab.

No name calling necessary, see?

	29-04-2005 07:30									#75
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by JohnT Again totally ignoring the possibility that this itself was payback for 40+ years of gerrymandering by the Dems, eh Boris? Not that that makes it right, but let's shed a little historical perspective on this.

Nobody denied they hadn't done it before, but again, it was mandated by Texas law to do it every 10 years. Of course the party in power is going to try and gain from it.

However, redistricting every time a legislature feels like it is a big difference. The second the Dems get a majority again, they'll have the precedent to do it. It could go on like that forever. Let's see what that does to voter disenfranchisement when nobody knows what the hell district they belong to anymore.

	29-04-2005 07:32									#76
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov And the court passing the plan was a perfectly legitimate way for it to be accomplished under Texas law, given the legislative failure to act.

But has ZERO to do with a rule about the LEGISLATURE passing only one redistricting.
Simple enough, even for a socialist, that a court is not same thing a a legislature?

	29-04-2005 07:40									#77
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola But has ZERO to do with a rule about the LEGISLATURE passing only one redistricting. Simple enough, even for a socialist, that a court is not same thing a a legislature?

You seem to be missing the simple fact that redistricting is mandated by the constitution for only once every 10 years--no matter WHO does it. So the court doing it was the shot.

It's pretty obvious the legislature rule is stated precisely for the purpose of maintaining the redistricting being only once every 10 years. So the GOP ramming through redistricing two years later is violating the spirit of the rule, anyway. Not hard to see that.

Since the redistricting in 2000 was done by a nonpartisan panel of judges, they can hardly claim it was somehow unfair or improperly done.

	29-04-2005 07:53									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov You seem to be missing the simple fact that redistricting is mandated by the constitution for only once every 10 years--no matter WHO does it. So the court doing it was the shot.

Wrong again layman, no such rule in the constitution (and that would be law, not a fact, simple or otherwise). The only restrition to once in the ten year census period is to the taking of the cesus itself. The same clasue describes apportioment of numbers of districts to the states, but says ZERO about how many times the state may redistrict their respective apportionment. IIRC, cesus apportionment is artitle I, section 2, clause 3 (amened as to 'whole persons' by the XVI amendment).
I suspect, however, since you did not make the argument earlier, but only after a lower priority (state legislative rule) BS was disposed of, that you know that already, and your 'simple fact' was a simple lie.

	29-04-2005 09:17									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola Wrong again layman, no such rule in the constitution (and that would be law, not a fact, simple or otherwise). The only restrition to once in the ten year census period is to the taking of the cesus itself The same clasue describes apportioment of numbers of districts to the states, but says ZERO about how many times the state may redistrict their respective apportionment. IIRC, cesus apportionment is artitle I, section 2, clause 3 (amened as to 'whole persons' by the XVI amendment).

This has nothing to do with what I said--I explicitley stated it was NOT a legal issue. What I said--and is entirely correct--is that the Texas legislature is REQUIRED to redistrict after ever decennial census. Says so in Article III, Sec. 28 of the state constitution.

And I know that nothing limits, constitutionally, more redistricting--SCOTUS upheld that. It isn't about redistricting being illegal, it's about it being a snarky violation of established protocol that will open the floodgates to biannual political upheaval in the state.

That there was a legislative rule about the decennial redistricting supports the view that it was expected, when the rule was made, that redistricting would only be done every 10 years.

Tell me, what other reason could the GOP have other than partisan politics to redistrict two years after the previous redistricting was carried out by a bipartisan panel?

	29-04-2005 09:20									#80
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: The second the Dems get a majority again, they'll have the precedent to do it. It could go on like that forever. Let's see what that does to voter disenfranchisement when nobody knows what the hell district they belong to anymore.

The Dems don't need to since it's already like that. In the past year, moving between apartments within Austin, I've lived in three different Congressional Districts...

	29-04-2005 09:20									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You, Texas gerrymandering doesn't really matter. Despite the change in parties, it's the same people. Conservative Democrats just became conservative Republicans.

	29-04-2005 17:21									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola The was the panel of judges after the legislature failed to pass a plan. The legislature rules only apply the actions of the legislature, twit. The court having made a plan does not count as the legislature having passed a plan. The legislature has duly passed only one redistricting plan since the census. You could have firuged that out, even from a crappy article the world socialist website.

So in other words you are telling me that the GOP looked at the polls, saw they were likely to win seat in that election and so intentionally rejected the panel of judge's bipartisan redistricting plan in order to gerrymander the whole state in the next session. How is that not immoral?

	30-04-2005 01:58									#83
	Put an end to popups!

I said no such thing, prevaricator. The first session of the legislature after the census could not act becasue fo factionialization among the majority (r) and obsbruction tactics by the minority (d) so one was imposed by court panel, the next session took up the task again with the squabbling in the majority, and overcame continuing osstruction tatactis by the democ minority including quorum breaking (the only legislative rule breaking invovled, Agathon, and by the Dems).

	30-04-2005 09:49									#84
	Support Apolyton

Ah, this is amusing. Boris trying to argue Texas law with a lawyer from Texas... I think I know which one I trust more .

	30-04-2005 22:54									#85
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well, out here in Kalifornia, Arnie is talking about redistricting to "undo" the highly partisan Gerrymandering done here by the Demoncrats. He is talking about doing it in an "apolitical" way.

This is just one of the reasons why the Demons out here are hopping mad at the very effective Arnold Schwarzennegger. He is stripping the of their ill gotten gains.