[jmranchman]

I love how the headline here is "Court Nixes Part of Texas Political Map", and talks about how this is a "small victory" for demoRats....the guys never cease to amaze.....jmr

[new yorker 77]

Gina Holland does not know what to do anymore.

[P-40]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan.

In other words, a Democrat...and not the Hispanic Republican they elected.

[Red Badger]

ustice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

BS!.......

[mtbopfuyn]

Gina's not just a little biased, is she?

[weegee]

Failed to protect minority voting?

It ADDED two minority congressmen INCLUDING redistricting Chris Bell(D) into a predominantly black district.

The Democrat still won but he wasn't white and his name was not Chris Bell.

Chris Bell was the outgoing Congressman who leveled the ethics charge against Tom DeLay.

Is Chris Bell a racist? I don't know but I do know that after he loses the governor's race this fall, he'll be a 3 time loser (mayor, congress, governor).

[Gay State Conservative]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said Hispanics do not have a chance to elect a candidate of their choosing under the plan. The vote was 5-4 on that issue.

So,in other words,"Hispanics" aren't being allowed to vote,right? Apart from being able to vote (assuming they meet all Federal and state requirements) what right do "Hispanics" (or any other group) have to elect a candidate of their choosing?

Or are election quotas written into our Constitution?

[Wings-n-Wind]

COURT UPHOLDS MOST OF TEXAS MAP...

[MikeA]

Since when was American democracy about engineering things so minorities can win? Am I in America or some crazed Alice in Wonderland P.C. world of lunacy? If Hispanics can't win based on their ideas and ability to sell their candidacy, then why should the courts be the ones to force things? Why don't we just give up the idea of elected legislatures and just have the courts run everything? Sheesh...

[af_vet_rr]

new, oddly shaped district.

If they are referring to my district or one that borders it, that stretches down to Laredo from Central Texas or over to Houston, I want it redrawn. My interests are not the same as somebody in Laredo, and I doubt my neighbors a few blocks away share the same interests as somebody in Houston on s state level.

[MNJohnnie]

Freaking unbeliveable. The Dems lost EVERY one of their points. All the Judges did is require 1 district redrawn. On EVERY points the Democrats LOST

[Virginia Gentleman]

The ruling was a major victory for the Republicans, but the MSM can not bring themselves to report it as such. The main issue was the constitutionality of redistricting between censuses. The minority voting rights issue was a secondary point at best and involved just one district. So how does the MSM report the story? It leads with the minor issue and buries the main issue deep in the story. Just amazing.

[PeaceBeWithYou]

What about equality and blind justice? Special rights, of any kind, violate the very soul of the Constitution.

Also, is the VRA's renewal still stuck in Congress? If so, this could have an affect on the decision as well.

[neverdem]

"On a different matter, the court ruled 7-2 that state legislators may draw new maps as often as they like — not just once a decade as Texas Democrats claimed. That means Democratic and Republican state lawmakers can push through new maps anytime there is a power shift at a state capital."

IMHO, I think this is even more noteworthy. It has the potential to generate congressional redistricting every time a house in a state legislature changes control from dems to pubbies or vice versa. In states with the right of popular initiatives, that could lead to more states having non-partisan commissions drawing the maps of congressional districts and making many more of those districts up for grabs.

[Bommer]

The fractured decision was a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democratic incumbents from office.

In defeat they seem to still win!

[TexasPatriot8]

Yeah such a bias headline. I mean, most of it was upheld as legal by the court, and all the important parts of it are still law. If this is a victory for the democrats, then they've forgotten what a real win is. The decision upholds redistricting and there will not be fewer Republicans in the election. That's the important bottom line.

And more important still, this proves that Tom DeLay did nothing illegal in this regard either. More evidence that Tom DeLay was run out of office for no reason, other than the fact he's a hard line conservative that won't compromise on his beliefs. Though he didn't really get run out, he was an honorable man who fell on his sword so he wouldn't be a lightning rod for liberal radicals against the conservative movement nation wide. In every way he is more honorable and dignified than any democrat. Even though he broke no law, he left for the good of the party and his beliefs. Whereas democrats stay even after being accused and indicted, like Patrick Kennedy, Rostenkowski, Clinton (both of them), William Jefferson, Pelosi, and Reid, and they only leave office when they're voted out, like Gary Condit or are drug to jail by law enforcement after conviction, like Trafficant and Marion Barry. THIS is the real culture of corruption, the democrat liberal one.

[justanotherfreeper]

I'd be very interested in your take on this case.

[goldstategop]

Anthony Kennedy is for apartheid... for minorities. But that's the blinkered racism of today's Democrats.

(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")

[Uncle Hal]

The bias it that article is unbelievable. The MSM cannot write an article praising the GOP or one indicating a GOP win if there life depended on it.