Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Aug 22, 2013.
Decisions based on the color of a person's skin is racism. Upsetting to you?
More upsetting that people don't really understand what racism is. If simply "making a decision" based on the color of someone's skin is racist, then someone who has a sexual preference for black women is by your definition, a racist.
Why does everything the Democrats get involved in involve race???
The district was created in Florida to appease the Democrat party. The districts in Texas were created to appease the Republican party. However, with our President and his apologists on this website they have issue with what Texas did. Pretty typical of the hypocrites they are. I for one have no problem with either set of districts as that is how politics work. The party in power gets to create the districts in their state. It has always been that way. If the Democrats want to change the districts in Texas then they need to do a better job of winning seats. If the Republicans want to do something about Corrinne Browns district and any other district with Democrat representatives in Florida then the Republicans need to win more seats. It is not Obama and Holder's business in either case.
As for voter id..... If you need an id to drive, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol or even get into a R rated movie then you surely should need an id to vote. There is nothing racial about a voter id. Just more of our resident Peter's crying 'wolf'.
Corrine Brown's district wasn't created based on politics. It didn't exist under one of the redistricting plans adopted by Florida in the early 90s, the state got sued for having a redistricting plan that diluted the vote of African-Americans, the three judge district court panel initially agreed and drafted a district that looked a lot like how that district is now shaped, it got appealed and bounced around, and the case was settled by agreeing to redraw the districts to create a majority-minority district that would resolve the claims of vote dilution.
Her district literally has everything to do with race.
Texas's may or may not have been drawn solely because of politics. But regardless, if it has the effect of diluting the minority vote (spreading minorities across multiple districts when a district is possible that would allow the minority group to elect a candidate of its choosing) it violates one person, one vote and the anti-dilution principles of Section 2 of the VRA. There is an ample line of case law supporting that fact. What is the government agency charged with enforcing the VRA? The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. Who is in charge of the DOJ? Eric Holder. Ergo, it manifestly is Holder's business to involve himself in this if he believes Texas's redistricting plan has the effect of diluting African American or Hispanic votes (or, as alleged in the Texas redistricting complain, both).
So he's telling the Supremes to foff too?
Perhaps if you haven't a clue what any section of the VRA does or what the Shelby County decision said. So for at least 2/3 of this board, sure.
(In reality, no. Striking down only Section 4 of the VRA doesn't have a bit of effect on the continuing viability of Sections 2 and 3.)
Good job talking out of both ends there Ben. The districts in both Texas and Florida were about politics. Race has nothing to do with either. All the whining about race to get what you want politically really hurts the cause to advance race relations. Then again we all know improving race relations is never the lefts intention when they keep pulling out the race card.
It's really gotten to the point that the second you and others claim something is racially motivated the one thing I know is not motivating you and others on the left to bring the subject up is race. Good job.
This is the truth about what's really happening.
This should be the poster argument for the Pubs when fighting that murderer Holder and his commie haters from He!!.
This is what I think... he continually attempts to draw attention away from what he's really doing... killing jobs and our economy.
It doesn't have to be racially motivated to violate the VRA. In fact proof of discriminatory intent is explicitly not required to establish a violation of Section 2, a discriminatory effect is enough.
The Voting Rights Act prohibits drawing district lines that have the effect of diluting minority voting power whether that was the intent in drawing the district lines or not. The only reason Texas is pleading that it was politically motivated rather than racially motivated is to try to avoid a finding that they have a history of intentional discrimination that could potentially make them subject to a pre-clearance regime on every change they make to their voting laws again, not because it constitutes a legal defense for the redistricting lines - it clearly doesn't.
It's a little tough to claim that Corrine Brown's disctrict looks the way it does because of politics when the political redistricting process didn't create it. They drew districts that didn't look like that and got sued based on the claim that their legislatively drawn districts diluted minority voting power. That district was crafted, largely by a three-judge panel of the federal district court, to create a majority-minority district and the State then adopted it to get their redistricting plans out of court.
Yep, and this just means that Holder and the putz in the White House are projecting when they talk about unfair redistricting.
I see. So you think because a three judge panel created it then it couldn't have been politically motivated. Wake up!!!!!
The bottom line is all the voting districts in every state were created as a result of politics. If they weren't then every district would be the result of a grid system that never changed. Every voting district ocurred because of the voting history of the areas involved. Including Corrinne Browns district. Race has nothing to do with it in either state. Claiming race (or minorities) was an issue is just more b.s.. It is all about voting history.
No, I think it was crafted to create a majority-minority district (it was 51.5% black as of the 2010 election) because federal law says that splitting a minority group amongst multiple districts when a majority-minority district is reasonably possible constitutes illegal vote dilution.
It was created because there was a serious contention (including a finding by the District Court) that Florida was violating federal law if they didn't create it.
Yes. Because one look at that 'district' clearly shows politics had nothing to do with it. You keep telling yourself that.
It probably wouldn't have been required under the dilution test applicable now. In the early 90's, however, Florida was contending with the problem that it has a significant black population - enough to strongly suggest that minority districts were required under the iteration of the test that was around then - but not highly concentrated enough black communities to make the drawing of very contiguous minority districts reasonably possible. That district was one of the results of trying to sort that out.
Recently more emphasis has been placed on contiguous or compact districts under the test, and there's a good chance Florida wouldn't have had to create the 3rd if they were doing it now. However if they break it up now they then face the problem that dividing up a majority-minority district where over 50% percent of the residents are of the minority race creates a presumption that there should be at least one majority-minority district when they replace it (and there still isn't a real contiguous one that they can draw which contains the same number of voters as Florida's other congressional districts).
If you want to describe the need under federal law to have a majority-minority district as political, go ahead, it certainly was drawn solely to get a majority-minority district. But I don't think partisan politics had a lot to do with it (in fact white democrats weren't terribly happy with it when it was initially drawn because carving out the areas needed to create a majority-minority district made them markedly less competitive in all of the surrounding districts).
OK, we now know the story on Corrine Brown and how she keeps her seat. Her district is majority black and they all vote for Corrine because she delivers.
Will those of you in south Florida show us the map of Debbie Wasserman Schultz's district. Every idiot in the state has to be in that area and they must all vote for her about 16 times a piece. The Flamethrower.
Back to the original post. Barry knows that all those black Hispanics will vote for a DEM. Ben knows this-he is deflecting the truth and getting you guys off topic.
So where does that get you, that the racial anti-discrimination elements of the Voting Rights Act are only allowed to be enforced by Republican administrations since they wouldn't benefit from stopping discrimination?
DOJ suing Texas does exactly nothing unless they can prove a VRA violation in court, and if they can prove that what Texas did illegally discriminates I have no problem with them stopping it.
I at least understand the argument behind the fake anti-fraud bills, but arguing that DOJ shouldn't pursue provable instances of voter discrimination because letting states break federal law might help Republicans seems like it might be taking it a little far, no?