really more of a whine than a legit complaint.

Maybe sometimes revolution slips in through the back door when others are still trying to smash down the heavily fortified front door.

The recent SCOTUS decision confirming re-districting is a matter NOT solely for the politicians, and can be delegated to Independent Commissions in Arizona, is having national ramifications already.

Since changing 8 districts means many more adjacent to those districts will also have to be changed....time for an Independent Commission, the obvious, long-term solution.

SCOTUS had little to do with this.

The Texas redistricting was federal and SCOTUS, but relied on federal "disparate impact" language. Had there been no way to infer that disparate impact affected a protected class, the political basis for the gerrymandering would have passed Constitutional muster.


I'm still of two minds concerning the recent SCOTUS decision. On the one hand, it strikes me as reasonable that legislatures and where voter initiatives are allowed the electorate can delegate legislative authority to do certain things, even if those things are based in language in the US Constitution.

At the same time, I think it's unreasonable because if anything is subject to a slippery-slope it's law. Most slippery-slopes stop being slippery because of gut reactions; the logic may lead one way, but at some point people look at the premises and say, "No, they don't mean what they can be tortured into meaning." In case law, it's possible to torture words to mean the opposite of what they certainly meant. So if a legislature delegated budget authority, would that be okay? How about the ability to confirm electors to the EC? Could the Senate delegate treaty-approval authority to an independent "treaty approval board"? How about impeachment and removal authority? "Whatever the prosecutor decides is fine by us, we pre-approve him."

Could the President and Congress delegate war-declaration authority, the president to a general and the Congress to a consulting group that they hire to evaluate the claims on the ground?

Apart from some judge saying, "No, that's too far to stretch the language" I don't see a principled reason against them, given SCOTUS. The same kind of stretching has been observed in numerous cases over the last 100 years. If you like it, it's "a living Constitution"; if you dislike it, it's "judicial activism" or such. It's really the same thing, amendment by redefinition.

Not much danger of slipping if there is no slope. And I fail to see any danger, even if.

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

5: Corrine Brown (D)
13: David Jolly (R)
14: Kathy Castor (D)
21: Theodore Deutch (D)
22: Lois Frankel (D)
25: Mario Diaz-Balart (R)
26: Carlos Curbelo (R)
27: Ileana Ros-Lethinen (R)

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/FL

do the right thing.

make all re-districting debates and decisions made in public, not behind Koch-locked doors.

As The People wrote into the Consitution, that little old thing also known as the "supreme law".

Supreme courts follow the supreme law, the secular law in America, not the Biblical or any religious law, a frustrating little thing to wannabe fascists and theocrats the world over.

In the final anaylsis Obama was right to counsel patience and trust in the rule of law.

They DON'T WANT to do the right thing, not even close. They would have to be dragged kicking and screaming and would then file lawsuits or appeal other lawsuits and would do everythign humanly possible to ignore the rules and stack the deck in their favor. Fortunately, they don't always win.

Scott should lose his lawsuit on the goverment for following ACA rules, Scott thinks he's special and the rules should be waived for him only. Voldemort makes me so sick!!!!!

LGBT movement would not be where it is today without Obama's Bully Pulpit a couple of years ago, but it's definitely a large marker on the way.

And it's just a minority of the people...maybe not the voting people...but get loud enough and it does make a difference. It moves the energy faster. Same with the ACA.

Call me optimistic...yeah, the glass is half full.

we need to get this going around the country. We need a fair and equitable way of identifying the Congressional Districts across this country and it needs to be the same all over this country.

It's a board of D/R/Independent. Not sure exactly how 'independent' those members are, it's hard to imagine anybody really so in today's climate, but our last redistricting seems to have at least make some sense.

The problem with these districts... Fl-13 is essentially Pinellas County, except when the district was redrawn south St Petersburg (largely AA) was eliminated from the district and added to Fl-14 (Tampa, which is already solidly Dem), in order to create a safely Red Fl-13 when it should be competitive or even slightly Blue. Fl-14 will be safely Blue whether or not south St Pete is included.
Similar problems with the other districts cited. I was surprised the previous court let these districts stand, and not the least bit surprised that decision was overturned. I expect the GOP to appeal and drag it out longer...we've already had 2 elections held with faulty district lines because of GOP stalling tactics.
BTW, info above is slightly incorrect. Fl-5 is represented by Corrine Brown (D). It is a ridiculously gerrymandered district that snakes all over NE Florida to include as many AAs as possible. Brown collaborated with Republicans to create a safe district for herself. There's no justification for those district lines.

and was redistricted from 19 to 25, somewhere near Miami. Other coast, guys. West of where I live is near the water. Um, know what that means? Rich Republicans. They want to KEEP it like that. Where I live is a very mixed area with far more Democrats.

I have never even been to where I now "live". It is over 200 miles away with the Everglades in between. Insanity.

Guess how long I plan on holding my breath for that redistricting to happen?

Than true Democracy.


Time for HER to go bye-bye

She is all about herself. She is a solid "D", though, and she's right that minority rights need to be taken into consideration. She is wrong that "her" district is defensible. Note that she didn't address the big concern, only her own personal situation.

Sorry Corrinne, the districts are wrong and stupid and all need to be fixed, and taking minorities into consideration. I'd bet we will still have African American representation in this state if all districts are done fairly.

Cue the Republican "activist judges" poutrage.

That's Corrine Brown-D. She's upset her district is getting redrawn since it was a guaranteed Democratic win.

That district has a large Black population, guaranteed Black Democratic win in that district, who knows what the new one will look like.

It's still pretty solid blue at the moment. The rest of Jacksonville is pretty solid red with all the military and money there, they can make her district more competitive.

otherwise when things like this get appealed, repug activist judges will side with the gop.

Can we get that in ALL 50 states? Or do we need to make it a federal law?