Gerrymandering legislative districts is a serious problem
for democracy. It ranks up there in the pantheon of evil with the Supreme Court’s
Citizen United decision, which turned dollars into words; a billionaire has
more words than you have.
The shift of “word power” to right wing economic elite has
had consequences. The activist Supreme Court is a result of a shift in
judiciary politics finance by those with the money to do so. The result is that
we have well financed campaigns for Supreme Court appointees. The Karl Rove
contribution during the Bush years was to move the campaigning to the federal
district courts. It was the crown jewel of Roves perpetual majority concept studded
with numerous appointments to the lowest level government positions. In the not
to distant past, it was only the closest advisor who were presidential appointees,
such as cabinet officers and ambassadors, but now appointments are made to even
the most obscure posts in government offices.
The connection between the Supreme Court and gerrymandering
of districts is that the only solution seems to be to have the courts decide
how to solve the problem; district-by-district. It is obvious that political
party operatives, especially Republicans, have corrupted the system to the
point that we commonly have democratic senators, elected by all the people in a
state, in contrast to a majority of Republican representatives elected from
gerrymandered districts in the House of Representatives. In addition, some of
the most radical representatives are from gerrymandered districts. This fact is a sure indication that in a
Red State, the districts are even redder; thus, it seems to have a concentrating
effect on those with extreme political principles. Tea party members truly represent
their “sub” districts but do not represent the political views of the people of
the entire state.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn certain section of
the civil rights act was clear evidence of their right wing activism. With
radical justices such as Thomas, Alito, and Scalia, the Robert’s Court is
incapable of making legal decisions as opposed to political decisions. They have
proved that. This decision allows racism to creep back into politics. North Carolina
proved that we couldn’t get a fair decision out of District Federal Court. I
would challenge people to go to the internet and look at the cartoon-like outlines
of legislative districts in North Carolina. They are a nightmare of
gerrymandering yet the courts did not agree with the plaintiffs that was the
case. In the old plantation, South there is a tremendous racial bias overlying
confusing caused by political biases, so much, that it is sometimes hard to
figure it out.
Representatives from these gerrymandered districts control the
House of Representative; therefore, they represent small political factions and
not the people of America; this is not
democracy. The State of Iowa is an extreme example but the same phenomenon
is seen in Republican primaries throughout the nation; political radicals with
hands full of money, not mouths full of words, control low turnout elections;
therefore, we end up with +Ted Cruz, +Rand Paul, +Richard Burr, and +George
Holding; and a government shut downs just because they can.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com
Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment