Posted on 07/12/2014 2:06:48 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Last night a circuit court judge in Florida voided the state's congressional map, citing a "secret, organized campaign" by Republican operatives that "made a mockery of the Legislature's transparent and open process of redistricting." The ruling concluded that District 5, held by Democrat Corrine Brown, and District 10, held by Republican Dan Webster, will need to be redrawn. From a purely practical standpoint, this means redrawing any surrounding districts as well, and possibly many of the state's 27 districts overall. "If one or more districts do not meet constitutional muster, then the entire act is unconstitutional," Judge Terry Lewis wrote.
The ruling is something of a barn-burner, and well worth a read. Lewis opens it up with a quote from George Washington warning of "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men" who will "subvert the power of the people" and "usurp for themselves the reins of government." Below, three big takeaways.
1. Half-measures won't solve the gerrymandering problem
In 2010, Florida voters attempted to fix the issue of partisan gerrymandering by passing two amendments to the Florida Constitution that became known as the Fair District amendments. The amendments limit -- but do not eliminate -- the state legislature's discretion in drawing district boundaries, by forbidding districts drawn "with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or incumbent."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The gop used to present their redistricting plan in opposition to the dem plan. It was just as bad as the dems, or nearly.
I’m no longer in California - so I don’t really give a hang.
If you really think the main reason for California’s slide is the redistricting, you’ve been drinking waaaaaaay too much gop kool aide
You are being silly. Apparently, I have a clearer idea of the meaning of cheating than you.
cheat
[cheet] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
Possibly 1, 2 and 3 apply, but 5 definitely does apply.
Yes - you are a hypocrite. You squeal like a pig when the very same tactics are used against you as you would use against your opponent. Pretty clear case.
My agenda is to see integrity reign, not to contribute to the chicanery.
I will object to ANYBODY trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.
Remember - this argument started when you falsely claimed that federal law demanded that districts be drawn to ensure a minority representative. You were as wrong about that as you have been since.
Well if that happens, and your ‘true conservative’ party comes to power and draws districts like you want them drawn, “fair” (which to you I guess means “not shaped like a snake”, arbitrary) the democrats will probably win the majority.
So you think the CA Republicans presented just as bad a redistricting lines, eh ? Again, it’s been 62+ years since the CA GOP had full control to draw the lines.
And yes, sir, it is one of the preeminent reasons for California’s slide. Had the GOP been in control of the line-drawing, electing better people instead of Phil Burton’s race to the bottom, you’d better believe the state would be in a better place today.
There you go again. You keep using those words. “Cheat”, “hypocrite.”
What your version of integrity is, sir, is best described as a mutual suicide pact for the right. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Oh, and btw, I was certainly not wrong about the intention of the VRA. Now you’re trying to redefine reality. I live in such a district, I damn well know what it does and whom it is for.
Yes - I use those words because they are accurate.
Of what good is the “right” if it is as corrupt as the left - which is what you advocate.
And yes - you were clearly wrong -but I think, from this discussion, that you border on insane.
Actually, there is a clear dfinition of “fair” - according to the law.
You could read what I wrote - The gop offered their version of a plan, when I was there, and it was just as bad in its own way.
No - it was not. Acquaint yourself with the word “demographics” and quit crying about the wrong happen stance. It’s like crying that the darkness is hiding the sun at night.
“Fairness” according to your opinion. Fairness which is highly subjective.
So politics, and which ideology was in charge, played no part in the demise of California, eh ? It’s quite clear you’ve displayed a shocking amount of cognitive dissonance throughout this thread.
Yes, you are bordering on insane - you are now shifting from “redistricting” to “politics and which ideology was in charge” as the reason for the decline in California.
I never said politics had nothing to do with it - the claim that you made was redistricting did California in, which is pure poppycock! DEMOGRAPHICS - figure out what that word means and you will move closer to the truth every sane intelligent person is already well aware of.
Part of your semi-insanity is this little, stupid game you play with word - “you don’t know the meaning of...” childish, and without the slimmest connection to reality. I use words for a reason, and I obviously know their meanings better than you do.
Your arguments have deteriorated to the silly and infantile - especially when you keep strawmanning everything - which you have done from the start. Look up the sophistry of strawman - you will be better for it. It is one thing to use a sophistry intentionally, but when one uses them unknowingly, as you do, it makes for a very bizarre debate; with one person (you) believing they have rebutted, when they have actually presented a nonsensical non sequitur.
As a conservative, I have little use for the gop. You are more gop than you are conservative. I have little use nor sympathy for your arguments.
Obviously the demographics of Cali are not good and getting worse but only a clueless yahoo who knows nothing about politics would pretend it doesn’t matter how the lines are drawn.
Actually, only a clueless yahoo would twist what I said into “it doesn’t matter how the lines are drawn”.
I obviously have not made the claim you imply I did, so me - not a clueless yahoo.
You have just done what I imply you have, so you - clueless yahoo.
Thanks for playing. Come back when you earn a few more iq points.
What’s amazing is that on other discussions, Mr. B, you actually are mostly in the right. Alas, when it comes to this subject and discussion, you totally go into meltdown. In any event, we’re not agreeing here whatsoever. It’s odd, because reviewing your positions elsewhere, you should come to the same conclusions as myself & Impy. Perhaps you’re just being argumentative and obtuse because you were too stubborn to concede you were wrong here.
In any event, you are also wrong (which, alas, you seem to batting .1000 in this particular thread) that I am “more GOP than Conservative.” Any cursory review of my posts will disavow you of that false conclusion. I consider the GOP as a vehicle for Conservatism, although it has been woefully lacking, especially where leadership is concerned. I am not an automatic vote for the GOP.
In my state of Tennessee, I have not voted GOP for Governor or Senator since 2006, and I won’t be rubber-stamping either this year with the present incumbents, neither of whom are Conservatives. I have not voted GOP for President since 2008 (and the latter was with exceptional hesitation, and had I to do it over again, would not have unless I had the option to vote exclusively for VP).
I trust this will conclude the discussion in this thread, since I think you would not wish to embarrass yourself any further, sir, by drawing any more erroneous conclusions.
Nothing I have said in this thread has been in error.
The difference between us is this:
I cannot condone using the tactics I condemn when used by the “other” side. If it is wrong for one, it is wrong for all.
You, on the other hand, will squeal when your ox is being gored, yet applaud the goring of the other man’s ox.
I consider that deplorable - like what Cochran did in Mississippi. You are ready to support behavior on one side that you rail against on the other...which makes you more akin to, more aligned with, the gop tactically.
I am not wrong here, have not been from the start. You blatted that federal law requires a minority Representative - you expected me to roll over and accept your blatantly stupid comment. I didn’t, I challenged it. And you twisted and turned and changed topic and built strawmen...at each point i thoroughly kicked your butt.
Just because you hold conservative beliefs does not excuse your hypocrisy nor your support of immoral and unlawful behavior. No more than Haley Barbour is excused for his behavior in Mississippi. I expect such behavior from libs; I don’t accept it from conservatives.
The district in question is an abomination, regardless of the result of its creation. The law condemns it, whether or not the system allows it. The conservative cause is better served by justice than chicanery.
He wants the last the word, let him have it, it’s not worth the aggravation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.