Monday, November 21, 2011

It Depends on Which Federal Interference You Prefer

In reaction to the redrawn State House and Senate district maps revealed by a 3-judge panel of federal district court judges, Texas Attorney General reacted with righteous outrage that the will of the people of Texas to elect themselves the most conservative state legislature in state history has been usurped by these militant judges (two of whom are Bush appointees).

“In a response filed with the court, Attorney General Greg Abbott challenged the three sets of maps — one for the Senate, two alternatives for the House — as an improper overstepping of authority by ‘unelected federal judges’ over the will of the elected Texas Legislature, which approved its own maps earlier this year.”
That’s right, they weren’t elected. Two were appointed by George W. Bush.

But today we hear that House Speaker Joe Straus has also weighed in, and has issued the threat that if the 3-judge panel doesn’t rule on maps that are more similar to the ones passed by the legislature, that they would file suit and take it to the US Supreme Court.

That’s right, that other panel of unelected federal judges, the one that rules for Republicans far more often than it rules for Democratic causes.

So it’s not so much about the unelected part, and it certainly isn’t about the part about them being federal officials ruling over state matters, another thing intimated by the AG, it’s all about who is on your team.

Proving again that the maps were drawn up with the most heinous of self-interested motives: winning through subversion of the election process.

That is … they are still doing it. If this isn’t completely obvious, justice is truly blind.

No comments: