Supreme Court rejects court-drawn Texas redistricting map
January 20th, 2012
10:41 AM ET

Supreme Court rejects court-drawn Texas redistricting map

The Supreme Court has tossed out the Texas redistricting map for congressional and legislative seats drawn up a federal court, giving a partial victory to GOP lawmakers.

At issue were competing maps for the Texas state legislature and Congress – created first by Republican lawmakers that favored their political base and later by a federal judicial panel to give minorities greater voting power.

The map drawn by the federal judicial panel had been imposed after Democrats and minority groups in Texas challenged the Republican lawmakers' plan, which Texas' GOP-led state legislature approved.

soundoff (78 Responses)
  1. obamahastogobarb

    I am watching the movie FOUNTAINHEAD. It sounds similarly of the politics of this day. Obama certainly exists for his own sake. It is time to end his reign of power. He is incompetent as a leader, and untrustworthy as a person.

    January 20, 2012 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
    • inthegrae

      You know, sometimes I think the only thing driving your kind of irrational assessment of our president is a repression of admiriation. You hate him because your political beliefs wont let you love him. So your world view gets more and more warped until you stop making any sense. Try a hypnotist.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Na-Na

      This has WHAT to do with the redistricting of Texas.....? Oh, yeah. Nothing.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Bermille

      What does this have to do with Obama? If anything, it proves the SC is just out for Republican politics.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |


    January 20, 2012 at 11:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Bermille

      Exactly because it will mean another four years that we may get another moderate on the SC instead of more hard right political activists that we have now.

      January 20, 2012 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Random Voter

      Will do. You can count on me. Obama 2012!!!

      January 20, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
  3. NYYFan1

    "The Supreme Court has tossed out the Texas redistricting map for congressional and legislative seats drawn up a federal court, giving a partial victory to GOP lawmakers." This should surprise NO ONE !! The Supreme Court has given victory to the GOP on more than one occasion (circa 2000 Al Gore vs. G. W. Bush)...

    January 20, 2012 at 11:41 am | Report abuse |
  4. Salamandering

    Jurymandering. Only in America. A simple popular vote would end this kind of nonsense.

    January 20, 2012 at 11:45 am | Report abuse |
    • banasy©

      I wonder how diffrerent the US would be if they had adhered to the popular vote in 2000?

      January 20, 2012 at 12:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Random Correction

      It's called "gerrymandering" not "jurymandering".....and the map was obviously bullcrap because it resembled an octopus on acid and not a simple collection of districts.
      Voting wouldn't do a bit of good here – the districts need to be drawn by impartial non-partisan educated people, not the sort of voters one usually encounters anywhere.

      January 20, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Report abuse |
  5. bobcat (in a hat)©

    It seems like one party is doing their damnedest to fix this race, just like before when the SC literally installed a certain POTUS. And it's also stramge that it involves Texas again. Deja vu all over again.

    January 20, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Report abuse |
  6. hawkeye

    @Banasy Ya that is a scarey thought,as crazy as al gore has proven himself.Lest we not forget george w busg did serve two terms.

    January 20, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy©

      How can anyone forget that GWB served two terms?
      My point was, and it bears repeating AGAIN, that is the popular vote really counted for something, AL GORE would have won in 2000.

      January 20, 2012 at 4:12 pm | Report abuse |
  7. concerned

    I agree to popular vote. As it stands in Texas right now as a democrat–well, not so much a democrat, but as a liberal (which now is the same thing)–my vote does not count in any way, state or form. I just vote now so that one day the popular vote will prevail and we can prove that our nation is mostly like me, even if Texas isn't.

    January 20, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Scottish Mama

    They already did the district shuffle in Missouri.

    January 20, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Report abuse |
  9. bobcat (in a hat)©

    And did it favor the republicans in Mo. too ?

    January 20, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama


      January 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Philip

    @Banasy. Are you referring to when Kerry dropped-out after Ohio? Right after he had promised his supporters to see his "battle" with W. Bush "clear through to the end"? What would have changed? Kerry voted "yes" for war on Iraq. Kerry didn't want the fed audited any more than Bush did. (or Obama now for that matter) Kerry nor Obama will even discus Bush's Carlyle Group in public! What would have been diffferent, in your opinion.

    January 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy©

      I believe you know exactly what I'm talking about: Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 election.
      What would be different?
      Well, if one kills a butterfly on the other side of the planet...

      Thay's the point.
      I wonder what would be different.
      I don't know, and neither do you.

      January 20, 2012 at 4:06 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Philip

    No matter who the next president is, China will still be purchasing oil and Ng from the American Carlyle Group, and security forces of some type must remain in Afghanistan to keep the locals from tearing-up the infrastructure. Vote for whomever you want. The situation will be the same, and the new president will continue Bush's policies just as Obama has. If Obama is reelected, he will continue to see to it that Carlyle Group interests are protected by US TROOPS and congressionally funded private armies just like he has been doing. China is thirsty for oil, and you would rather wave an .89 cent plasticrap flag at Wal-Mart than buy local. Win-win sitiation.

    January 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      Hi Philip- Glad I cought up with you today. I thought about you when I saw that the Carlyle Goup was putting up the money to fix the monument in Washington.

      January 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama


      January 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Gerrymandering Approved by the SC... just pathetic

    this is flat out gerrymandering. Disenfranchising hispanics in a traditional red state on an electin year is pure politics, and the SC is supposes to be an INDEPENDENT judiciary! the SC is supposed to be above politics in order to fight the rights of those people ignored by politics....

    January 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Manly Women of America

    @Scottish Mama. I didn't "single" anyone out. Banasy implied that things would have been different had Kerry won. I begged to differ, and asked her to clarify exactly how she thought that things would have been any different. (and i missed that carlyle group story you mentioned but will check it out)

    January 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • banasy©

      I was talking about 2000, which I plainly wrote.
      Kerry was 2004.
      Yes, I think you did single me out.

      January 20, 2012 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
  14. Ned Beatty's anus

    Pardon me.

    January 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Ned Beatty's anus

    The sad fact is, one man does not lead this or any other nation. Getting rid of one man fixes nothing. That goes for impeaching a president or assassinating a well known suspect. Money is still the grease on the axle of life drenched in oil no matter who is and who isn't in office. Greed has always prevailed.

    January 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4