To be fair, Blalron, a politician of any stripe standing for whats right in Texas should be taken as a clear sign of the impending Apocalypse. No virgin is ever elected Queen of the Whores. A Texan is usually forced to pick the one with the smaller number of running sores and STD’s.
And this plan is too cunning, too nakedly grasping for Tom De Lay, who cannot be trusted to cook his own oatmeal. This one has Karl Rove’s fingerprints all over it. Gotta hope that man don’t suddenly die, then GeeDubya will be President.
Notice the Texas-bashers only come out after dark (note posting times). They cannot stand the warm caress of sunshine as it further reminds them of the beautiful garden that is Texas, and how far removed from that Shiner-filled paradise they must live.
RexDart: Hie thee to Lockhart, and remember Kansas City barbeque no more.
This site provides a summary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling (in Davis v Bandemer) on political gerrymandering. I’m no lawyer, but my general understanding is that when the redistricting is done soley for partisan reasons, it is unConstitutional:
*“The view that intentional drawing of district boundaries for partisan ends and for no other reason violates the Equal Protection Clause would allow a constitutional violation to be found where the only proven effect on a political party’s electoral power was disproportionate results in one election (possibly two elections), and would invite judicial interference in legislative districting whenever a political party suffers at the polls. Even if a state legislature redistricts with the specific intention of disadvantaging one political party’s election prospects, there has been no unconstitutional violation against members of that party unless the redistricting does in fact disadvantage it at the polls. As noted, a mere lack of proportionate results in one election cannot suffice in this regard.” *
This particular case had to do with gerrymandering in Indiana. (However, their redistricting was upheld.)
Actually, politically-motivated gerrymandering is entirely constitutional (at least under federal law–state laws may vary). It is only racially-motivated gerrymandering that is (usually) unconstitutional.
Another thing is Texas is in the middle of a budget crisis (Texas is hardly alone there I know). In particular, we are not ay all sure how a lot of our educational system is going to be funded in the years to come. Some Republicans are driviing to eliminate our current ‘Robin Hood’ system, that shifts some resources from wealthier areas to poorer areas for school funding. We really need our legislature to get its act together. If the Democrats took such a step to force that issue, I would approve…
Also, demographics are more or less on the side of the Democrats. The Latino population is growing, the cities and suburbs are getting bigger…they are going through some dry years, but after 2010, they will be in a much better position - if they don’t keep doing stupid things that alienate people, and find better candidates.
One is the issue of forcing a quorum. Texas law allows for the House seargeant-at-arms (or his designees, i.e., the Texas Rangers) to force legislators to attend in order to attain a quorum. That is why Chuck Norris is sitting just over the border from Ardmore. The legislators aren’t in legal jeopardy – they won’t be charged with anything. They’ll just be forced onto the House floor (Texas law also will have the doors to the House locked behind them).
What minty is alluding to are the constitutional minimums for districting requirements – i.e., that they cannot be drawn on racial lines. Which is fine. Even the folks squirreled away in Ardmore aren’t saying the Republican proposal is unconstitutional. Were that the case, there would be no need to break quorum – when the redistricting plan passed, the Dems would just challenge it in federal court.
What the folks hiding in the The Evil State are saying is that the Republican redistricting plan is bad policy, and they’ll be damned if they’ll let it pass, even if it means running to another state. Obviously, YMMV as to the validity of that argument, but there ya go.
In any event, it does not excuse the choice of Oklahoma as a hideout.
Short answer: Due Process prevents the police from using deadly force unless the suspect (and they’re not even suspects here, since there’s no crime) poses a threat to public safety.
Because the law requires them to attend. The law authorizes the sergeant at arms to remedy non-attendance by compelling their attendance.
Yes
No.
No
No
They can drag them kicking and screaming only if the legislators are within their State. Otherwise, they are out of their jurisdiction and they can only ask nicely.
(sigh) You guys are still attempting to apply rational, reasonable explications to Texas politics. Thats like discussing nuances of the dialectic with a rabid javelina. As Upton Sinclair remarked:“There are two things no civilized person should ever have to witness. One is what really goes into sausage, and the other is what a Texas poltician does for his daily bread.”
OK, try this: take a picture of Tom De Lay, gaze at it intensely. Ask youself: what wouldn’t this man do in pursuit of power? No, the Texas Rangers can’t legally shoot a liberal.
Just as an aside, what would happen if the Democrats, about to be forced onto the floor by an extradiction warrant, all committed suicide in protest. What would the Republicans do then?
Crap, I just realized the governor would probably just call a special election for all the missing spots and we’d be back where we started at. Cancel that plan.
: