SUPREME COURT TO AMERICANS: MAKE YOUR OWN DAMN POLITICAL DECISIONS-- IN TEXAS AND CONNECTICUT

The Democratic suit against DeLay's power-grabbing gerrymander of Texas was always-- at least to me, considering the make-up of the Court, basically a far worse bunch than the villains who handed Bush the presidency he didn't win in 2000-- an exercise in windmill tilting. So this morning's Supreme Court decison didn't surprise me at all.

Predictably, the 5-4 decision "upheld most of the pro-Republican Texas congressional map engineered by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and freed all states to draw new political boundaries as often as they want. The court, however, said that part of the new Texas map failed to
protect minority voting rights, a small victory for Democratic and minority groups who accused
Republicans of an unconstitutional power grab in drawing boundaries that booted four Democrats
from office... Some 100,000 Hispanics had been shifted out of a district represented by a Republican, and foes of the plan had argued it violated the Voting Rights Act which protects minority voting rights."

The practical effects look like a 3-judge panel will first decide when to re-draw TX-23 (and surrounding districts)-- before or after November-- and that will probably mean bye-bye to corrupt right-wing nutcase Henry Bonilla. Then they have to decide if they'll draw the new boundaries for that part of Texas themselves or kick it back to the lunatic fringe state legislature to do it. A bonus could be next door in TX-28 where far right fake-Dem Henry Cuellar's main base of support, Laredo, would probably be added to Bonilla's district, which would make the contemptible Cuellar a sitting duck for another challenge from a real Democrat like Ciro Rodruguez.

There are a couple of real messages here to think about. One will encompass my daily attack on George Bush's and Ann Coulter's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, and the other is about the responsibilities we as citizens have if we even want a democracy. Attacking Lieberman is easier and more fun so let me deal with the democracy thing first.

To have expected this Supreme Court to throw out DeLay's partisan gerrymander was not realistic. This kind of partisanship is the business of voters. (That's why the Court, appropriately, took exception to just one part of the gerrymander-- the part that disenfranchised a minority group: Hispanics.) But if the people in Texas as not satisfied with the quality of their democracy they have a gubernatorial election and state legislative elections coming up, the perfect way to express their feeling about this stuff. Can the Democrats make the case so that Texas voters understand what's at stake? I'm not sure but I have a feeling they'd have a better shot with Texas voters than they would with the Roberts Court.

And that brings us to Lieberman unworthiness to be re-elected Senator from Connecticut. The always duplicitous and oily/slimy Lieberman is actually campaigning on a false claim that he opposed the nomination of Sam Alito, the deciding vote on this (all every other reactionary decision that has come down recently). Yes, he provided himself cover so he could go back to True Blue Connecticut braying like a jackass that he voted against Alito. But what he refuses to discuss is how he conspired with his Bush Regime buddies to guarantee Alito's confirmation by first voting for cloture-- the Republican tactic to shut off debate on the nomination and the Democrats' only chance to stop Alito. That pair of votes is showcases the quintessential Joe Lieberman: a dishonest hypocrite masquerading as a Democrat to keep power, power he consistently uses to advance much of the catastrophic and reactionary Bush agenda.