Blatant hypocrisy: libs changing laws when it suits them

[SmarterthanYou]

1.Was it an illegal action?

if it was, the courts would have blocked it. They didn't.

2. was it designed to twart the will of the voter?

The voters bloc wasn't a part of it. Delays gerrymandering engineering was setup so that whole districts were reconfigured with the whole intent on eliminating the district that martin frost represented. The district that sat just south of mine. We raised holy hell with the state legislature, to no avail. That's why some state reps lost their seat next election.


again, you are an apologist hack.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

wonder if Romney will go for the seat. he gave old teddy a run for his money back in the 90's

He should. I hope he does.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

ROFLMAO... so the people who ELECTED the Rep Governor did not trust the Gov to act in their best interests?

Nope.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nope.

pretty stupid people up there then. Hey Grind, were you stupid enough to elect a gov that didn't represent your best interests?

 

[Damocles]

pretty stupid people up there then. Hey Grind, were you stupid enough to elect a gov that didn't represent your best interests?

You mean the one that instituted required health insurance laws?

 

[Chapdog]

You mean the one that instituted required health insurance laws?

LOL that was romney

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You mean the one that instituted required health insurance laws?

yep, that one. not sure why the state dems needed to change that law in 04 because it seems that romney was doing quite well as a rino doing dems work.

 

[maineman]

we are on a speeding train to a third world hellhole..

if you really feel that way, you can hop off anytime you like.

 

[Damocles]

LOL that was romney

Clearly. Just saying...

It's silly to suggest that they didn't know what they were voting for. And didn't Romney sign this legislation for a special election?

People, seriously. If it were an R legislation and the Rs did this some people that are complaining today would be cheering them on while others that are happy about this would be talking about the "arrogance" of the R legislators.

 

[Bonestorm]

He should. I hope he does.

That would be hysterical. When Romney left office he had a net approval rating of -31% in Massachusetts and that was before he spent a good deal of time trashing the state in pursuit of the GOP nomination for president.

The fact that the Massachusetts state GOP has pretty much nobody lined up to run for Kennedy's seat except a bunch of carpetbagger re-treads (so far I've heard Romney, who doesn't even live in the state anymore, and William Weld who lives in New York and was last heard eyeing the NY governorship) should tell you all you need to know about why the Massachusetts Democrats think they can get away with anything. They can.

 

[maineman]

Clearly. Just saying...

It's silly to suggest that they didn't know what they were voting for. And didn't Romney sign this legislation for a special election?

and the way this proposition is worded, anyone that Patrick appoints will be required merely to fill the seat and provide Massachusetts with equal representation in the US Senate until the runoff election... and the person appointed will be a caretaker only who will NOT be allowed to run for the seat.

I really don't see what everyone is bitching about. The people of Massachusetts deserve to be equally represented in the US Senate, especially when important issues that impact them are being voted upon.

 

[Based Chad]

and the way this proposition is worded, anyone that Patrick appoints will be required merely to fill the seat and provide Massachusetts with equal representation in the US Senate until the runoff election... and the person appointed will be a caretaker only who will NOT be allowed to run for the seat.

I really don't see what everyone is bitching about. The people of Massachusetts deserve to be equally represented in the US Senate, especially when important issues that impact them are being voted upon.

They've been fine with Teddy in a coma. What kind of caretaker is a vegetable>

 

[Chapdog]

and the way this proposition is worded, anyone that Patrick appoints will be required merely to fill the seat and provide Massachusetts with equal representation in the US Senate until the runoff election... and the person appointed will be a caretaker only who will NOT be allowed to run for the seat.

I really don't see what everyone is bitching about. The people of Massachusetts deserve to be equally represented in the US Senate, especially when important issues that impact them are being voted upon.

right, i didnt have a problem with that in 2004 and I dont now. I just dont like how they change the rules back and forth.

 

[Chapdog]

and the way this proposition is worded, anyone that Patrick appoints will be required merely to fill the seat and provide Massachusetts with equal representation in the US Senate until the runoff election... and the person appointed will be a caretaker only who will NOT be allowed to run for the seat.

I really don't see what everyone is bitching about. The people of Massachusetts deserve to be equally represented in the US Senate, especially when important issues that impact them are being voted upon.

where did you hear they wouldn't be aloud to run for the seat? isn't that anti constitutional?

 

[DamnYankee]

They've been fine with Teddy in a coma. What kind of caretaker is a vegetable>

Good point. They should have just kept him on a machine, flat lined, where he could have existed for decades. Or if that failed, just freeze him and claim that they were waiting for brain cancer technology to improve. Massachusetts could have changed the law to allow that just as easily. *shrug*

 

[maineman]

where did you hear they wouldn't be aloud to run for the seat? isn't that anti constitutional?

I heard that that was a provision suggested by Teddy himself... that the caretaker not be allowed to use his caretaker status as an unfair benefit in the special election... and I don't see how such a measure is any less constitutional than, say, term limits.

 

[evince]

if it was, the courts would have blocked it. They didn't.

The voters bloc wasn't a part of it. Delays gerrymandering engineering was setup so that whole districts were reconfigured with the whole intent on eliminating the district that martin frost represented. The district that sat just south of mine. We raised holy hell with the state legislature, to no avail. That's why some state reps lost their seat next election.


again, you are an apologist hack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting#Justice_Department_involvement

Yet one more reason the DOJ was politized by Bush


In December 2005, the Washington Post reported, "Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo" uncovered by the newspaper. [7] The document, endorsed by six Justice Department attorneys, said "the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts."

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo noted. The article also stated that Justice Department lawyers "found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options." Nonetheless, Texas legislators proceeded with the new plan "because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state," the Post said about the document.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting#Justice_Department_involvement

Yet one more reason the DOJ was politized by Bush


In December 2005, the Washington Post reported, "Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo" uncovered by the newspaper. [7] The document, endorsed by six Justice Department attorneys, said "the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts."

"The State of Texas has not met its burden in showing that the proposed congressional redistricting plan does not have a discriminatory effect," the memo noted. The article also stated that Justice Department lawyers "found that Republican lawmakers and state officials who helped craft the proposal were aware it posed a high risk of being ruled discriminatory compared with other options." Nonetheless, Texas legislators proceeded with the new plan "because it would maximize the number of Republican federal lawmakers in the state," the Post said about the document.

and from that wikipedia article:

In addition, the redistricting sought to protect Hispanic Republican Henry Bonilla,

so it wasn't about race, it was about political parties, which leads me to conclude that you're an even bigger political hack that uses the race card way too often.

 

[Chapdog]

I heard that that was a provision suggested by Teddy himself... that the caretaker not be allowed to use his caretaker status as an unfair benefit in the special election... and I don't see how such a measure is any less constitutional than, say, term limits.

i doubt that will be in the bill. My guess is joe kennedy gets appointed the seat then runs for it. We shall see.

 

[evince]

What the fuck?

yes it does you complete fool.

It disenfranchised black voters because we all know how they vote for the most part.

Because the Republican it helped was latino means nothing.