• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rejects judge-drawn Texas election maps

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a Texas political dispute, rejecting judge-drawn election maps favoring minority candidates and Democrats in the 2012 congressional and state legislature elections.
In its first ruling on political boundary-drawing based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the high court unanimously set aside the interim maps created by federal district court judges in San Antonio.

Supreme Court rejects judge-drawn Texas election maps | Reuters
Click to expand...
Well a step in the right direction, finally!
 
And that direction being what, exactly?
 
MrVicchio said:
Well a step in the right direction, finally!
Click to expand...

I think the idea someone's color,race/ethnicity,political affiliation should be taken into account when redrawing election maps is absurd and immoral. The only factor should be population and nothing else.This is why I think a computer should draw the lines and not scumbag politicians trying to redraw the districts to favor themselves.
 
jamesrage said:
I think the idea someone's color,race/ethnicity,political affiliation should be taken into account when redrawing election maps is absurd and immoral. The only factor should be population and nothing else.This is why I think a computer should draw the lines and not scumbag politicians trying to redraw the districts to favor themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed, both sides are guilty of this and I wish it would stop.
 
Agree with James on this one.
 
jamesrage said:
I think the idea someone's color,race/ethnicity,political affiliation should be taken into account when redrawing election maps is absurd and immoral. The only factor should be population and nothing else.This is why I think a computer should draw the lines and not scumbag politicians trying to redraw the districts to favor themselves.
Click to expand...


I agree...stright lines...nothing should be taken into account.
 
Some of the districts are goofy as hell in design.
 
I agree, too.

That said, isn't it more than a bit hypocritical that conservatives are so adamant about this, while at the same time insisting that this is NOT a democracy, and that there should not be a "tyranny of the majority"? Why is it that some minorities, but not others, should call the shots?
 
AdamT said:
I agree, too.

That said, isn't it more than a bit hypocritical that conservatives are so adamant about this, while at the same time insisting that this is NOT a democracy, and that there should not be a "tyranny of the majority"? Why is it that some minorities, but not others, should call the shots?
Click to expand...

The "tyranny" was a federal judge trying to forcibly redraw districts in TX to favor Democrats and minorities... The Supreme Court overturned this. Gerrymandering is wrong, but it happens.
 
digsbe said:
The "tyranny" was a federal judge trying to forcibly redraw districts in TX to favor Democrats and minorities... The Supreme Court overturned this. Gerrymandering is wrong, but it happens.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recap, but you didn't answer my question.
 
AdamT said:
I agree, too.

That said, isn't it more than a bit hypocritical that conservatives are so adamant about this, while at the same time insisting that this is NOT a democracy, and that there should not be a "tyranny of the majority"? Why is it that some minorities, but not others, should call the shots?
Click to expand...

Is this a joke? Conservatives are far more likely to respect the will of the voter (for better or worse depending on your POV). It's liberals who decry notions like "tyranny of the majority" (not saying that's good or bad, it's just reality).
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Is this a joke? Conservatives are far more likely to respect the will of the voter (for better or worse depending on your POV). It's liberals who decry notions like "tyranny of the majority" (not saying that's good or bad, it's just reality).
Click to expand...

Have you been living under a rock for the last five years? The Republican minority in Congress is the most obstructive in modern memory. They continually work to thwart the will of the majority.
 
AdamT said:
Have you been living under a rock for the last five years? The Republican minority in Congress is the most obstructive in modern memory. They continually work to thwart the will of the majority.
Click to expand...

Partisan hackery. remind me about the MINORITY dem senate blocking Estrada's appointment to the CoA on racist grounds.
 
TurtleDude said:
Partisan hackery. remind me about the MINORITY dem senate blocking Estrada's appointment to the CoA on racist grounds.
Click to expand...

Not familiar with that one, but one example does not a trend make. The fact is that many conservatives defend the obstruction by explicitly stating that we do NOT live in a democracy, and by decrying the "tyranny of the majority" -- and then become apoplectic if districts are manipulated to give a different minority greater representation.
 
AdamT said:
Not familiar with that one, but one example does not a trend make. The fact is that many conservatives defend the obstruction by explicitly stating that we do NOT live in a democracy, and by decrying the "tyranny of the majority" -- and then become apoplectic if districts are manipulated to give a different minority greater representation.
Click to expand...

so when libs run to court when the voters reject gay marriage that is the right being disrespectful of the will of the majority?
 
TurtleDude said:
so when libs run to court when the voters reject gay marriage that is the right being disrespectful of the will of the majority?
Click to expand...

You mean in California, where the anti-marriage forces were largely funded by Mormons from outside of California? Last time I checked, Utah wasn't part of the California electorate.
 
AdamT said:
You mean in California, where the anti-marriage forces were largely funded by Mormons from outside of California? Last time I checked, Utah wasn't part of the California electorate.
Click to expand...

Did those pro-traditional marriage voters from outside California vote?No they didn't. It was pro-traditional marriage voters from inside California that voted and why a majority of California voter said yes to traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Can we all agree that county borders should dictate House district boundaries? Then, use regions like central, northwest, southwest, etc to group the counties. Done.
 
AdamT said:
You mean in California, where the anti-marriage forces were largely funded by Mormons from outside of California? Last time I checked, Utah wasn't part of the California electorate.
Click to expand...

well lots of union money flowed into Ohio concerning Senate Bill 5.
 
jamesrage said:
Did those pro-traditional marriage voters from outside California vote?No they didn't. It was pro-traditional marriage voters from inside California that voted and why a majority of California voter said yes to traditional marriage and rejected gay marriage.
Click to expand...

It was the elected California representatives who passed the law to begin with. It was mostly outside forces who funded the ballot initiative, and who bombarded the airwaves with advertising and funded the get out the vote campaign.

I imagine that you would have no problem with it if our federal elections were primarily funded by, e.g. China and Saudi Arabia?
 
AdamT said:
It was the elected California representatives who passed the law to begin with. It was mostly outside forces who funded the ballot initiative, and who bombarded the airwaves with advertising and funded the get out the vote campaign.

I imagine that you would have no problem with it if our federal elections were primarily funded by, e.g. China and Saudi Arabia?
Click to expand...

that sounds like the funding Gore and Obama received
 
AdamT said:
Thanks for the recap, but you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming that we are a direct democracy. The US is a republic with a representative democracy.
 
AdamT said:
Have you been living under a rock for the last five years? The Republican minority in Congress is the most obstructive in modern memory. They continually work to thwart the will of the majority.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're talking about the will of Congress. I was referring to the will of the people.
 
digsbe said:
No one is claiming that we are a direct democracy. The US is a republic with a representative democracy.
Click to expand...

And thanks, too, for stating the obvious, but the point of our indirect democracy, and having a Senate that is not proportional to population, was not to give the minorit of representatives the ability to hamstring the majority of representatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom