High Court Won't Stay Redistricting
From KEYE, Austin
U.S. Supreme Court Won't Hear Texas Redistricting Case
Fri Jan 16, 4:57 PM ET
Congressional elections in Texas will proceed under a new Republican-backed redistricting plan. Friday the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) rejected an emergency appeal from Democrats to block use of the redrawn lines. Justices later this year will announce whether they'll consider an appeal from Democrats and others who claim the redrawn Texas map dilutes minority voting strength. The districts were approved in October by the Republican-controlled Legislature -- after months of political fighting. Texas has 32 seats in the U.S. House -- held by 16 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Republicans contend they could capture as many as 22 seats under the new map, which was upheld earlier this month by a three-judge federal panel. Attorney General Greg Abbott believes the GOP map will withstand court challenges. GOP Governor Rick Perry says it's now time to put the election process in the hands of Texas voters.
From WashingtonPost.com
Bush Bypasses Senate On Judge
Pickering Named To Appeals Court During Recess
By Mike Allen and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, January 17, 2004; Page A01
President Bush bypassed senators yesterday and installed Charles W. Pickering Sr. as an appeals court judge, ending a two-year battle over a Mississippian viewed by Democrats as hostile to civil rights
Republican officials called the decision a calculated escalation by Bush in his standoff with Democrats over their use of delaying tactics to stall several of his most conservative nominees for lifetime seats on the federal bench. The move threatened to poison White House relations with Democrats further at the start of an election year.
Bush used his recess-appointment powers to seat Pickering, 66, a federal district judge in Hattiesburg, Miss., on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans. Pickering was sworn in last night at the U.S. District Courthouse in Jackson, Miss., the state capital, less than three hours after Bush's announcement.
Such appointments, which the president can make when lawmakers are out of session, last until the next Congress takes office -- in this case, next January.
Senate records show the power, usually exercised with lower-profile nominees, has been used to elevate judges only a handful of times in the past 30 years. Less than a month before leaving office, President Bill Clinton used the mechanism to install Roger L. Gregory as the first black judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which includes Maryland and Virginia. Bush renominated Gregory, who was confirmed for life.
Pickering was challenged by Democrats over his 1994 actions from the bench to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross near the home of an interracial couple. Republicans contend Pickering was motivated by concern over the fairness of sentences meted out in the case.
Democrats also raised questions about Pickering's contacts as a state senator in the 1970s with the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, which worked to preserve segregation. Bush has called Pickering "an advocate of civil rights" and pointed to a large number of African American leaders in Mississippi who came forward to declare their support for him.
Bush, in a written statement issued after he had departed for Camp David late yesterday afternoon, asserted that a bipartisan majority of senators supports Pickering and that "if he were given a vote, he would be confirmed."
"But a minority of Democratic Senators has been using unprecedented obstructionist tactics to prevent him and other qualified individuals from receiving up-or-down votes," he said. "Their tactics are inconsistent with the Senate's constitutional responsibility and are hurting our judicial system."
A Senate Republican leadership aide said the appointment was intended as a "shot across the bow" to Democrats after the White House decided they were paying too small a price for filibustering the nominations of Pickering and five other appeals court nominees, several of whom Bush sees as potential Supreme Court picks. But the aide said Bush was "taking a chance," because Democrats might retaliate on other nominees they might otherwise have allowed to be confirmed.
Both parties are likely to make Pickering an issue in November's election as an engine for motivating core supporters. Within hours of Bush's decision, Democrats were charging that the appointment shows his reelection could threaten reproductive and civil rights. Republicans were arguing that Pickering's dilemma shows why Bush needs more Republicans in the Senate, where the split is 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent.
Nominated by Bush soon after he took office in 2001, Pickering was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee when Democrats controlled the chamber in 2002. Bush renominated him last year as soon as Republicans regained control of the chamber. The nomination stalled after a furor over racially inflammatory remarks by then-Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), his main patron, who subsequently resigned from his leadership post.
Pickering and his allies continued to try to build support for the nomination. He was later approved by the Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote, setting the stage for a showdown fight on the Senate floor last fall.
As they had done with several other Bush nominees, Democrats filibustered Pickering's nomination. On a vote of 54 to 43 in Pickering's favor, the judge's backers fell six votes short of the 60 needed to end the stalling tactics and bring the nomination to a final vote. Bush called the action "a disgrace."
Democrats condemned Bush's decision, announced at the start of a holiday weekend.
Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said it shows Bush "has no interest in working in a bipartisan manner to appoint moderate judges who will uphold the law." And Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, called Bush's move a "cynical, divisive appointment that will further politicize the federal judiciary."
Several leading Democratic senators juxtaposed the appointment of Pickering with Bush's wreath-laying in Atlanta on Thursday at the grave of Martin Luther King Jr., on what would have been the slain civil rights leader's 75th birthday. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) called the appointment "an insult to Dr. King, an insult to every African American" and said it "serves only to emphasize again this administration's shameful opposition to civil rights."
On the Republican side, Lott said Pickering's nomination had been "stifled by special interests who have unfairly smeared the reputation of a good man."
Republicans said Pickering is likely to retire when his recess appointment expires -- unless he is confirmed, which the GOP concedes is unlikely.
This was posted to the Texas Democrat Yahoo!Group. It's from www.bushoccupation.com. Feel free to reproduce it.
by Mike Hersh & E. O'Connell, 1-6-04
History and Polls Prove Bush is Beatable
Because Bush currently leads an unnamed Democrat by about 10 points in the
major polls, the corporate media hawk the myth that Bush can't be beaten. True,
the Pew Research Center poll conducted Dec. 15-17 showed Bush leading an unnamed
Democrat by 12% and the ABC News/Washington Post Poll from Dec. 18-21 found Bush
up 10%. But the Zogby Poll of Dec. 15-17 showed Bush only 5% ahead.
As the "Saddam bounce" fades, Bush's lead evaporates. The CBS News/New
York Times Poll taken Dec. 14-15 had Bush ahead only 44% to 40% after months of
see-sawing results: Dec. 10-13 Bush up 1%. Nov. 10-13 Bush down 2%. Oct. 20-21
Bush up 12%. Sept. 28 - Oct. 1 tied at 44%.
The most recent CBS News Poll of Dec. 21-22 shows Bush returning to
reality: 49% for Bush, 40% for the Democrat. Soon, the race will be back to
even. Still, Bush backers crow over poll results showing Bush ahead by a dozen
or more points over named rivals, but that's no reason to anoint Bush.
As Mark Shields reports, "Once again, the inside-the-Beltway
political-press consensus is clear, straightforward and wrong." He asks, "Have
they forgotten or do they not know that the last Democrat to challenge a sitting
Republican president, on April 1 of the election year, had the support of just
25 percent of voters and trailed the incumbent by 20 points? That, of course,
was Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who, as late as June of 1992, had just
24-percent support and was running third...."
Shields reminds us that in January 1980, Carter led Ronald Reagan by 29%:
62% to 33%. Reagan beat Carter by 10%. July 28, 1988, Michael Dukakis led GHW
Bush by 17%. Bush won easily a few months later. On April 1, 1992 Bill Clinton
trailed Bush by 20%. Clinton ended up beating Bush by 6%. See: Mark Shields: A
little perspective, please, December 29, 2003.
Now consider the margin by which Bush lost in 2000. We can argue about
whether or not counting votes is more important than what Bush's Daddy's pals on
the US Supreme Court say, but Al Gore won the popular vote by over 600,000. Not
many 2000 Gore voters look at Bush now and think wow! He's more compassionate
and capable than I thought! Bush can count on very few Gore voters in 2004.
Ralph Nader will not run as a Green this year, and may not run at all.
This means a lot if not most of his 3 million or so votes will pad Gore's
legacy. That adds up to a potential 4% win for the Democrats in November. Of
course a lot can and will change between now and then.
The Iraqmire may get much worse. The jobless "recovery" may stall under
crushing national and consumer debt, chronic high unemployment, a sinking dollar
driving up costs of oil and other imports. The Bush economy is a wreck for all
but the top elite. Congress will have to extend unemployment benefits again, or
risk massive job loss among Republican Congress-people.
Don't Fall for Hype about "Falling New Jobless Claims"
This is not a difficult concept once we separate sense from spin. The
claim from Bush backers goes like this: "The Labor Department reported Wednesday
that new applications filed for unemployment insurance dropped by a seasonally
adjusted 15,000, to 339,000, for the week ending Dec. 27."
Over a third of a million Americans still lost their jobs. That's good
news? No. Things are getting much worse - note that while 339,000 people lost
their jobs and filed for benefits, many more lost their jobs and didn't file.
They may have given up looking for work. They may not have done the paper-work.
They all joined millions who lost their jobs under Bushonomics.
Not to mention the millions who have either given up searching for work at
all, or who are "employed" at whatever low-wage jobs they can get at pizza
parlors, Home Depot (a favorite of the Bush administration), or Wal-Mart, to
name a few. -- Editor
This lower new job loss figure means things are getting much worse at a
slightly slower rate. Cause for celebration? No. Not when the economy must
create more than a million jobs a year to break even, and Bush's economy is
still losing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Put it this way. Say you're riding in a car with a kook, let's call him
George. He's not too bright and had way too much to drink. He passed out on the
highway and you're headed for a wall at 70 mph. You scream, he wakes up and hits
the breaks. Now, you're heading into the same wall at 60 mph.
The economy must create a million new jobs a year to break even. Bush's
lethargic economy has lost millions of jobs a year. The number of adults out of
work is still extremely high - as much as 10% by reliable estimates. Bush looks
to join them in Nov. 2004.
Then There's National Security
The Kurds caught Saddam. Bush lied by claiming US troops did that. More
lies from the guy who did the aircraft carrier victory dance before the mission
was accomplished, and then did the fake turkey trot in Iraq over Thanksgiving.
All that prancing and we're less safe now, as confirmed by the
administration raising the terrorism alert to Orange - HIGH! What does that
mean? Check the "Homeland Security" website which explains:
4. High Condition (Orange). A High Condition is declared when there is a
high risk of terrorist attacks. In addition to the Protective Measures taken in
the previous Threat Conditions, Federal departments and agencies should consider
the following general measures in addition to the agency-specific Protective
Measures that they will develop and implement:
Coordinating necessary security efforts with Federal, State, and local
law enforcement agencies or any National Guard or other appropriate armed forces
organizations; Taking additional precautions at public events and possibly
considering alternative venues or even cancellation; Preparing to execute
contingency procedures, such as moving to an alternate site or dispersing their
workforce; and Restricting threatened facility access to essential personnel
only. See: Understanding the Homeland Security Advisory System.
"Homeland Security" director Tom Ridge says we'll stay on HIGH risk of
terror attack for the foreseeable future. Maybe most voters will see this and
think, "That Bush sure is doing a bang-up job on security," but that doesn't
sound very safe to me. Especially considering the way the White House turned a
blind eye to terrorism before 9/11 and put petty partisan bickering above
national security since.
Attorney General Ashcroft had to turn over the investigation of the White
House leaker(s) to an independent prosecutor. These leaks hurt our national
security by "outing" CIA agent Valerie Plame. "Unnamed" White House officials
did this to "punish" Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson - an
expert who told the truth about Bush's lies. Also to intimidate other experts
who know about Bush Administration lies.
Politics and Special Interests over the National Interest
The Bush White House always puts their political interests over the public
good. Now, they're even intentionally endangering our national security to
further their cover-ups. Richard Nixon's Watergate Gang never dreamed of this
fundamental and monumental corruption.
As the public learns more about Bush's lies on Iraq, his failures and
cover-ups about 9/11, and the economy languishes in neutral for almost everyone,
Bush will lose more support. Especially if the media may start doing their job.
If the media wake up and report the news, Americans may learn more about how
Bush and his bunglers undermined our national security before and after 9-11
with the Kean Commission and investigations into Leakergate.
Who knows? We may get the real story on Harkengate (Bush insider trading),
Florida Votergate, Enrongate, and more. That's some record for Bush to run on!
Even if the media slumber continues, the Democratic nominee and others will tell
Americans the truth about Bush's lies. That's why 2004 is a great year for
Americans, but a very bad year for Bush.
© Copyright 2003-2004 by E. O'Connell, http://www.Bushoccupation.com
Bushoccupation.com encourages you to reproduce, excerpt or broadcast any
material at their site, provided you identify the source as Bushoccupation.com.
All Internet summaries, excerpts and reproductions must link to
http://www.Bushoccupation.com.
From the Democratic Party of Texas
Political Week in Review—January 16, 2004
Texas Democratic Congressional Candidates Ready for the Fight
Tom DeLay and his partisan drones face the very real prospect of their weak Republican nominees losing another battle to the same Democratic congressmen who have beaten them time and time again as Democratic candidates for Congress beat the Friday deadline to run in the 2004 Texas Democratic Primary. Texans this year will have a unique opportunity to reclaim the basic constitutional rights taken from them by Republican powerbrokers when voters go to the polls to elect experienced, mainstream men and women to represent them in the U.S. Congress. Upon seeing the slate of winning Democratic candidates for congress, Chairman Soechting said, “Come November, the political pundits and Republican power-drunkards may get a little surprise when their lapdog nominees fall victim again to the superior candidates we nominate to defeat them.”
Read More About Texas Democratic Members of Congress in Campaign ‘04…
Rick Perry Flip-Flops on Education Funding
After publicly stating last week that Texas public schools could count on a zero increase in aide, Gov. Rick Perry reversed his position four days later and said he wouldn’t rule out more aide to public schools. Perry drew fire last week from parents, teachers, and school administrators after he said he saw no reason to boost education funding. When asked by reporters whether he was reversing his earlier statement, Perry said “I’m making a statement to clarify for you.”
Read More About Rick Perry Waffling Again on Education Funding…
SDEC Passes Resolutions Protecting Seniors, Local Taxpayers
The State Democratic Executive Committee adopted two referenda dedicated to protecting local taxpayers and senior citizens from unfunded state mandates during last weekend’s meeting of the SDEC in Austin. Republicans rejected an identical referendum on unfunded mandates during their own statewide meeting. The referenda passed by Democrats will appear on the ballot in the Democratic primaries scheduled for March 9, when voters will be given the opportunity to vote for or against 1) efforts to end or privatize Social Security and Medicare programs and 2) a constitutional amendment protecting taxpayers by prohibiting state mandates that require local property tax increases. The constitutional amendment barring unfunded mandates was proposed at a recent meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee and was voted down by the Republican committee members.
Read More About the Resolutions Passed at the Meeting of the SDEC…
Quote of the Week
"I have never been afraid of a political fight. That is not going to change now," Congressman Charles Stenholm, on his reelection campaign amid a gerrymandered GOP map. Stenholm has defeated Republican opponents every time since his first election to Congress in 1978.
| |
