How will the Supreme Court rule on the redistricting in Texas ?

[kentuck]

Will they rule that Tom Delay and the Repubs were right in their plans to redistrict at any time they wish? Is there a law that says redistricting can happen only every ten years after census? Will they say that the districts will have to go back to where they were before the last election? ANythoughts on this?

[fasttense]

1. The dancing supremes will pay back their masters.

Of course they will rule in favor of bush boy and his henchmen. They got them their jobs didn't they? Just like when the supremes voted child labor laws and minimum wage were illegal. Maybe our new dancing supremes will overturn those pesky laws too.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. When did the SC rule that labor laws and the minimum wage were illegal?

:shrug:

[Call me Deacon Blues]

2. Well anything this court does wouldn't surprise me

but it's pretty straight forward in the Constitution: " Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." You take a census every ten years and redistrict from that. The court might surprise us and rule against the Repugs, but who knows.

[On the Road]

4. There are Cases in Which There is a Conflict Between

constitutional philosophy. party philosophy, politics, and the specifics of the case, or at least two of the above.

Freedom to let South American religions use hallucinogenic drugs was one of those.

In the absence of any clear language, the redistricting case is not. I expect the court to uphold the Delay redistricting plan.

[kentuck]

5. Then, how do they cope with the cases....

when the Democrats win back the House and they start withdrawing all the districts anytime they want. Every year, more states begin these type of shenanigans? And then they are challenged in Court? That's why they wanted lines drawn every ten years, to prevent the confusion.

[On the Road]

17. I Think the Democrats SHOULD Practice Tit-for-Tat

but there's no constitutional principle involved as far as I know. This might be a case where judicial restraint is called for. The good thing about the case is that once the court is on record approving the redistricting, they can't very well complain when Democrats do it.

[tn-guy]

22. Congratulations, Democrats DO practice Tit-for-Tat

Gerrymandering has a long tradition in American politics and it has been and continues to be practiced by both parties. When Democrats are in control, they draw the districts to help Democrats, when Republicans are in control they do it. No party has clean hands on this issue. I remember many years ago the Tennessee General Assembly redrew the district lines in such a way that every Republican incumbent had another Republican incumbent in the redrawn district. Guess what happened? You guessed it, the number of Republicans in Congress from Tennessee was cut in half. Now, while one may appreciate the outcome, one must honestly admit that the tactic was pretty slimy. However; as others have pointed out, there is no Constitutional principle involved here so it would be no surprise to see the SC uphold the lines as drawn.

[AllegroRondo]

6. The questions before the Supremes:

1. Did Texas violate the constitution by redistricting more than once every ten years?
2. Did the new redistricting plan violate the Voting Rights act by using out of date census data?
3. Did the new plan violate the Voting Rights act by diluting minority vote strenght?

[kentuck]

7. Yep.

Thanks.

[AllegroRondo]

8. Other points

SCOTUS has previously ruled that redistricting more than once per census is allowed ONLY if there is a good reason to do so, such as a drastic population shift. For example, Louisiana could probably get away with redistricting in the next few years on the basis that the hurricane made current districts obsolete. But they would have to take another census and conform to that.
The other question before the court is then: Is shifting state political power a good enough reason to cause a redistricting?

[Neil Lisst]

9. Good call.

And I think the Supremes will bless the Delay scheme, thereby encouraging other states to follow.

[kentuck]

11. I'm not so sure of that.

I don't think it will be a clearcut decision. They may rule that Texas should go back to original lines "after" the next election?

[meow2u3]

15. Watch for Dem-controlled legislatures to retaliate if that be the case

Look for states like Illinois and New Jersey to pull a DeLay by re-redistricting in the middle of the decade. They'll accomplish this by diluting the voting power of the rich suburbs, disenfranching rich white conservative Christians (not that I would mind). :evilgrin:

Watch for Robertson to issue a Patwa calling for the assassination of all Democrats in the United States, regardless of ideology. :evilfrown:

[sinkingfeeling]

10. The majority will be all for it.

[movonne]

12. I don't even think about it, I would pretty much say this is written in

stone...why does bush want alito in the sc, this is a good reason..

[realFedUp]

13. delay, delay, delay......

send it back to the lower courts.

[kentuck]

14. A good possibility...

too hot to handle. But they did choose to hear the case? They had to have 5 votes to hear it, is my understanding?

[spag68]

16. spag68

So far I've seen no mention of an unlucky fluke, if the lines of 2001 are restored. At that time the dems. will gain seats back, but in a quirk of the lines Tom Delay will have back his old more repub. district, and have a better chance to win. Hopefully even the repubs. will be disgusted enough to turn him out, or he will go to jail instead

[Minnesota Libra]

18. How?? Whatever way will ensure rethugs control from here on. nt

[spag68]

19. delay

It has to do with how he allowed portions of his highly repub. district to be put into nearby districts to dilute the dems. in those districts.

[spag68]

20. delay

As to further clarify. The way it is now, is that delay has a really strong opponent. If the lines go back his opponent will run in his old district, leaving delay with a weaker opponet and a stronger repub. district. either way there is real hope to get tid of the evil b^$t#$d.

[Odin2005]

21. This is why we need proportional representation.

It would make districts uneccissary.