Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Texas Democrats Run Again

Texas Democrats Redistricting avoidance 2003

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:34 AM

http://www.chron.com...pstory2/2015694

The Texas Democrats have fled again to avoid voting on a redistricting measure.

This is an interesting story, to say the least. Anybody hear any polls on how they're perceived by Texas voters?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:37 AM

My take:

The Democrats are using how the system was written to get what they want. They feel that what the party in power is doing is wrong, and that they should stand up against it. They're perfectly within their rights to do so, and the voters should judge their actions. Some may perceive them as subverting the system or being childish, but that's for the voters to decide.

Kind of like Recall Davis.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#3 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:42 AM

Maybe our congressional democrats, instead of holding endless filibusters to prevent a vote on Bush's judicial nominees, should just run to Canada. :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#4 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:42 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 02:27 PM, said:

My take:

The Democrats are using how the system was written to get what they want. They feel that what the party in power is doing is wrong, and that they should stand up against it.

Kind of like Recall Davis.
Yeah.

And I hate both.

Funny how that works out.

:p
Posted Image

#5 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:43 AM

Drew, on Jul 28 2003, 02:32 PM, said:

Maybe our congressional democrats, instead of holding endless filibusters to prevent a vote on Bush's judicial nominees, should just run to Canada. :cool:
I hear it's lovely this time of year.

Quote

Lil: Yeah.

And I hate both.

At least you're consistent.... ;)
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#6 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:47 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 02:33 PM, said:

At least you're consistent.... ;)
It's going to be quite impossible for me to read any post by you without giggling because of that avatar.

:p
Posted Image

#7 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:51 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 28 2003, 02:37 PM, said:

It's going to be quite impossible for me to read any post by you without giggling because of that avatar.

:p
I'm just reporting the awful truth. It's not my fault. :cool:.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#8 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:54 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 02:41 PM, said:

I'm just reporting the awful truth. It's not my fault. :cool:.
Don't MAKE me get all lawyerly on you.

:devil:  :devil:  :devil:
Posted Image

#9 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:54 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 04:33 PM, said:

Drew, on Jul 28 2003, 02:32 PM, said:

Maybe our congressional democrats, instead of holding endless filibusters to prevent a vote on Bush's judicial nominees, should just run to Canada. :cool:
I hear it's lovely this time of year.
At the risk of hijacking the thread, I think it's rotten. The only reason someone would want to prevent a vote is because they think they'd lose. In which case they're neglecting the will of the people (assuming that there's a correlation between the way one's elected representatives vote and one's own will which isn't always the case).

Just vote already! How many judicial nominees are being held up because of the dems anyway?

Lileks had a good bit on this last Friday.:


Quote

. . . some Dems are suggesting that a certain nominee is unfit for confirmation because he is a staunch Catholic, and hence opposed to abortion, and hence cannot be trusted to rule in a fashion consistent with Roe V. Wade. We have not gotten into the abortion issue here, and we won’t now, or ever. I bring up the issue because there’s something revealing about the implications of the criticism.

If a judicial candidate says “I’m personally opposed to (social issue X), but it is legal, and any rulings I make on the matter will be informed by the law, not my own beliefs,” ought that not be sufficient? I want my judges to uphold the law, not contort it to fit their views. I don’t want them teasing penumbras from the emanations of the glow of the spark of the reflection of the echo of the intent of the Framers - I want them to deal specifically with the specific words of the law, as they specifically apply. So if someone accuses a judge of being unable to uphold the law because they hold a personal belief that conflicts with the law - even though that belief has nothing to do with the specifics of the case - then the accuser might be giving us a window into their own souls. The accuser might be suggesting that they would overturn a law to fit their personal morality, regardless of the fitness of the statute. Isn’t that how people behave, after all?

It’s called “projection,” I think.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#10 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:55 AM

Drew, on Jul 28 2003, 05:32 PM, said:

Maybe our congressional democrats, instead of holding endless filibusters to prevent a vote on Bush's judicial nominees, should just run to Canada. :cool:
Please don't let them.

I don't care what you do to the Democrats. But please. Spare poor Canada.

Although the hot air supply could be sufficient to finally complete the zeppelin fleet for the Department of National Defense to use in lieu of, you know, jet fighters. Those Spitfires have a certain retro charm to them, but they just don't do the trick. ;)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#11 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 08:58 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 28 2003, 02:44 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 02:41 PM, said:


I'm just reporting the awful truth. It's not my fault. :cool:.
Don't MAKE me get all lawyerly on you.

:devil:  :devil:  :devil:
But it gets me all hot and bothered!

Drew-- I see where you're coming from... but I disagree. That kind of filibustering and general pain in the assosity *forces* the president to choose centrists with a wide base of appeal. It's rotten... but I personally don't want Bush to be able to assign anybody he wants (the same goes for Clinton. Or any president). Filibustering has a proud tradition of forcing compromise. That being said, once again, I understand where you're coming from.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#12 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:04 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 28 2003, 04:48 PM, said:

Drew-- I see where you're coming from... but I disagree. That kind of filibustering and general pain in the assosity *forces* the president to choose centrists with a wide base of appeal. It's rotten... but I personally don't want Bush to be able to assign anybody he wants (the same goes for Clinton. Or any president). Filibustering has a proud tradition of forcing compromise. That being said, once again, I understand where you're coming from.

That's the way it's set up though. The president gets to make the appointments. Unfortunately, the only way a Bush nominee will be considered "qualified" by the Democrats is that if he leans the other way on Roe v. Wade. There can't be a compromise in this situation. The Dems can accuse Bush of having a "litmus test," but they've got one of their own. Seems cowardly to delay a vote just because one is afraid of the result. Supposedly this is a Democracy.

Edited by Drew, 29 July 2003 - 09:06 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:11 AM

^

Supreme court appointments are for life.  There is no vote of  no confidence.  There is no real vote at all (sorry I'm quite cynical about the concept that congress actually represents me.  Shockingly, I'm no fan of the electoral college either).  

As far as I'm concerned the more rigorous the hoops they have to jump through pre appointment, the better I like it.

Note I'm only talking about life time judicial appointments here.
Posted Image

#14 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:15 AM

Quote

At the risk of hijacking the thread, I think it's rotten. The only reason someone would want to prevent a vote is because they think they'd lose. In which case they're neglecting the will of the people (assuming that there's a correlation between the way one's elected representatives vote and one's own will which isn't always the case).

I violently disagree. I don't think that redistricting should be at the whim of the legislators - any legislators. It should be done using a mathematical formula based on population, and redone at specified, regular intervals following that formula. That way neither party can control it.

And I find the whole thing vastly amusing, given that IIRC, the Republicans were the first ones to use this technique (in the 70's, I think), and now it's come back to bite them in the butt.  :devil:

Edited by Rhea, 29 July 2003 - 09:17 AM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#15 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 09:19 AM

Rhea, on Jul 28 2003, 03:05 PM, said:

I violently disagree. I don't think that redistricting should be at the whim of the legislators - any legislators. It should be done using a mathematical formula based on population, and redone at specified, regular intervals following that formula. That way neither party can control it.
Word!

:ninja:
Posted Image

#16 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 11:18 AM

Actually the original Killer Bees were Democrats as well. Now these following in their footsteps are hurting the state they are supposed to serve, once again. There are better ways of doing this than costing the state (and we who pay for our government through taxes) large sums of money with their ...actions!

I am proud to be a Texan, but at times the activities of our elected officials just infuriate me!

These politicians are supposed to be responsible adults, working for us the citizens. This is NOT working for us.

Lil, Rhea, I agree with both of you on how redistricting should be done.

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 12:39 PM

Rhea, on Jul 28 2003, 05:05 PM, said:

And I find the whole thing vastly amusing, given that IIRC, the Republicans were the first ones to use this technique (in the 70's, I think), and now it's come back to bite them in the butt.  :devil:
Yes, but if it wasn't for Democrats, "bork" would have never become a verb.

Except on the Muppet Show.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 29 July 2003 - 12:55 PM

Drew, on Jul 28 2003, 09:32 PM, said:

Maybe our congressional democrats, instead of holding endless filibusters to prevent a vote on Bush's judicial nominees, should just run to Canada. :cool:
Between them and Chretien Canada would implode from political nonsense.   :p
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 12:08 AM

Quote

And I find the whole thing vastly amusing, given that IIRC, the Republicans were the first ones to use this technique (in the 70's, I think), and now it's come back to bite them in the butt.

Quote

Actually the original Killer Bees were Democrats as well.

When these guys ran last time, it was reported that the first ones to do it were Republicans. Before that, Democrats in West Virginia ran to Ohio.
Can't Touch This!!

#20 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 12:45 AM

Who was the first to do it 30-40 years ago doesn't matter, because that would leave it at the level of a special oddity of history that people pull this stunt once in a while.

But the Democrats now have decided that this is a routine to do whenever they feel like it, not an extreme to resort to under special circumstances. The reception this behavior got last time was like silencing a misbehaving child by giving him/her candy or whatever else (s)he wants; they learned that throwing a fit is an effective method for having their way again at any time in the future.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Texas, Democrats, Redistricting avoidance, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users