In Massachusetts, the Rule of Law Dies

[Freedom4all]

The gerrymandering was ruled ok in most areas. There was one area that was deemed to have violated the voting rights act provisions. Dude, in law there is almost never a complete black and white, especially election law.

The ruling is linked in my above post. It is interesting reading if you are constipated.

A link to the Daily KOS? Brahahaa. Talk about being "backed up"!

 

[delldude]

Oh my goodness......using blogs as sources....how conventional.

 

[Freedom4all]

Oh my goodness......using blogs as sources....how conventional.

Only in the liberal world...is good for me but not for thee.

 

[delldude]

Tech2101 wrote:

Ok then. Since you continue to post blog versions, here is the actual text:

Source

Oh my goodness......using blogs as sources....how conventional.

 

[tech2101]

A link to the Daily KOS? Brahahaa. Talk about being "backed up"!

That was not "backing up" my post. It was simply a summary of what the SCOTUS ruled on. I post these quotes because it is quite obvious you do not bother to read the full stories in the links I provide. If you did, you would not look so foolish.

It is amazing that you cannot get past your demonizing of anything that is not Fox News to see that.

Will this make you feel better?
Source: Washington Post

Washington, D.C.: Is there a case to be made that gerrymandering violates the "one man, one vote" principle?

Nathaniel Persily: Gerrymandering can violate the one person, one vote principle if it creates districts that have different populations in them. Here, the map, based on 2000 census data, had relatively equal numbers of people ion the districts. Plaintiffs' argued that the use of old census data was unconstitutional. The court held, however, that there is nothing per se unconstitutional about a mid-decade partisan gerrymander.

Arlington, Va.: Does this case open us up to redistricting at the state level every time one party gains control over another?

Nathaniel Persily: Several people are asking this type of question so let me elaborate. The Court did not hold that partisan gerrymanders are always constitutional -- only that this one was. Partisan gerrymandering claims remain justifiable -- meaning that people can still go to court and complain about them, but they will need to jump over some pretty high hurdles to prove their case. Here, the court said that the Republican map -- which overturned a map drawn by a district court and that favored current incumbents a disproportionate number of whom were Democrats -- did not constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Or maybe this:
Washington Post

The Supreme Court upheld most of Texas's Republican-drafted 2003 congressional redistricting plan yesterday in a ruling that could prompt majority parties in other states to redraw political maps to their advantage.

The endorsement of the plan, which former House majority leader Tom DeLay crafted to tilt Texas's congressional delegation to the GOP, was not absolute. By a vote of 5 to 4, the court ruled that a sprawling West Texas district represented by Henry Bonilla ® violates the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the voting power of Latinos...
DeLay paid a heavy personal price for his redistricting victory. His fundraising on behalf of the plan resulted in his being admonished by the House ethics committee and indicted on state charges of illegally diverting money to the campaigns of state legislators who drew the new map. As a result, he had to quit the House.

 

[delldude]

Thought it was a grosso no no to use blogs at all......

That was not "backing up" my post.

As in a corner...... :huh:

OOO.............I'm feeling constipated

 

[tech2101]

Thought it was a grosso no no to use blogs at all......

You are correct Dude. It is not acceptable to use blogs as a source in documenting research.

The only time it is proper is if you are using it as a direct quote of someone's opinion. It was wrong for me to use it here.

In my coursework, using Wikipedia or blog posts as a factual or scholarly source will earn you an zero on your paper.

I will try and do better next time Professor.

 

[Freedom4all]

Thought it was a grosso no no to use blogs at all......

That was not \"backing up\" my post.

As in a corner...... :huh:

OOO.............I\'m feeling constipated

Maybe its just a hairball from some random puddy tat perhaps?

 

[delldude]

You are correct Dude. It is not acceptable to use blogs as a source in documenting research.

The only time it is proper is if you are using it as a direct quote of someone's opinion. It was wrong for me to use it here.

In my coursework, using Wikipedia or blog posts as a factual or scholarly source will earn you an zero on your paper.

I will try and do better next time Professor.

Funny..........NYT does it and so do alot of your esteemed liberal institutions.....

 

[tech2101]

Maybe its just a hairball from some random puddy tat perhaps?

Thanks for the substantive reply. It boosts your moral standing.

 

[Freedom4all]

Thanks for the substantive reply. It boosts your moral standing.

Liberal talking about moral standings?

 

[delldude]

You are correct Dude.
I will try and do better next time Professor.

Emeritus Dude................. :bleh:

Don't forget it...

 

[700UW]

How can a diehard republican be pro-union and a former shop steward?

Doesnt that go against the party line?

LOL!

 

[rjh]

Liberal talking about moral standings?

lol ..love how you act like republicans are any better? All politicians are scum.

 

[Freedom4all]

lol ..love how you act like republicans are any better? All politicians are scum.

I was actually referring to techie...but ok!