March 1st -- SCOTUS to finally hears arguments on Delay's redistricting..

[pat_k]

. . .monstrosity

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Delay's redistricting monstrosity in ten days. Unsurprisingly, the White House is weighing in to support the criminal scheme.

They have long feared the day. They knew that no court with a scintilla of regard for Constitutional principle could rationalize upholding Delay's outrageous plan, but to consolidate Republican control of the House, it was imperative that they stonewall until the 2004 elections were behind them.

Through the efforts of R. Alexander Acosta, Assistant Atty Gen Civil Rights Division from Aug 2003 to June 2005, assisted by the black-robbed fascists who are invading our courts, they managed to kept Delay's scheme, and numerous other insupportable actions, in place as part of their election thievery in 2004. (For details see R. Alexander Acosta's Role in Stealing the 2004 Election

Once 2004 was safely past, they continued to stonewall. O'Conner was just too unreliable a fascist. With the feared day of reckoning fast approaching, they must have sighed with relief as they swore in Alito in the nick of time.

We know they are capable of anything, but it is difficult to imagine how the fascists on the court hope to rationalize upholding Delay's scheme. Perhaps, despite their efforts to purge sanity from the Court, they will not succeed on this one.

[MadMaddie]

1. The White House should not be involved in this...

isn't that a huge conflict of interest...

Why would the Supreme Court grant them the ability to participate in a State matter?

Is it just me?

[pat_k]

2. Of course they have no place. . .

. . .and the actions of the Justice department throughout 2003 and 2004 are so outrageous it has forfeited legitimate standing in any of the voting rights cases.

At some point, we need to make an example and go after R. Alexander Acosta personally for his actions.

[MadMaddie]

4. Agreed!!

:hi:

[babylonsister]

9. Apparently it's done regularly. I posted a similar thread in the TX

forum voicing my concerns, and David Van Os, TX candidate for Attorney General responded with this:

No reason to panic

Granting this request doesn't say anything about how the Justices may be leaning. As a matter of comity between the branches of government the Supreme Court normally grants a request from the administration to participate in a case involving federal issues. This is traditional practice from the early days of the nation. It would be extraordinary for the Court to turn down such a request.

So apparently, it's nothing new, fairly common, and granted as a courtesy.

Having said that, this could be huge for TX politics if the redistricting is overturned!

[pat_k]

10. Until O'Conner was replaced, overturning was probable. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41782-2004Oct18.html

[babylonsister]

12. I was just providing info on the presence of lawyers from

the admin, not the SC justices or outcome, though the results of this will be picked over for a long time. I fear we all will be missing O'Connor greatly.:-(

[pat_k]

13. Gotcha -- Response picked up on your last sentence

. . .this could be huge for TX politics if the redistricting is overturned!

[MadMaddie]

11. Ooooh....wouldn't that be something...

That would definitely put a kink in TX politics!!


Mmmmm....dad retired Air Force in San Antonio...I miss me some good Tex-Mex....:popcorn:

[marmar]

3. If they do uphold this plan...

Let there be no doubt that this country truly has fallen into fascism.

The United States of America. 1776-2000. R.I.P.

:cry:

[pat_k]

6. Yep. You have the date right.. The American contract -- the Constitution

. . .for the United States of America -- went into breach December 12th, 2000. Congress could have renewed it on January 6th, 2001, but they were derelict in their duty to preserve the Government (see tagline).

[hlthe2b]

5. Well, this one is going to truly "lay it all out there...."

If there is judicial integrity, it would be unanimous against the TX redistricting plan.

At best, though we'll see a 5-4 decision and I pray we DO see a 5-4 decision aganst TX. Hang in there Kennedy, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens....Please.

[AndyTiedye]

7. Using Bush v. Gore as Precedent, They Will Rule That...

...anything that elects more Republicans is just fine with them. :-(

[pat_k]

8. And Scalia will come up with some serpentine psychotic interpretation of

. . .the "plain text" of the Constitution to rationalize their fascist fantasies.

And the beltway boobs will declare it all very complex, far beyond the understanding of the likes of you and I . . . But, of course, no matter how deeply it violates every principle Americans revere, the law is the law. Oh well.