Thursday, June 29, 2006
Loss in Texas redistricting case gives Left another chance to slam Delay
As you may have read, the Supreme Court recently ruled that redistricting Congressional seats for partisan purposes is not unconstitutional and furthermore, can be done as often as the state’s legislature has the energy and inclination to do so. However, Justice Kennedy also seems troubled by one of the redrawn districts so there may be some fallout there. (Despite what the papers say, I’m not sure Justice Kennedy et al are saying the district has to be redrawn but, who knows, his opinions can be kind of tedious) That last bit of judicial wisdom seems to be part of Justice Kennedy’s ongoing efforts to be the next Sandra Day O’Connor and therefore liked.
The redistricting efforts in Texas were spearheaded by Tom Delay and, for the most part, were successful on a partisan basis: Texas is now a majority Republican-represented state. So, for Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post (in a piece NOT labeled "Analysis") this can only be described as the great American Greek tragedy:
“Tom DeLay's dogged quest for a new congressional map for Texas led to a disciplinary slap from the House ethics committee, his indictment on money-laundering charges, his fall from the House leadership ranks and, this month, his resignation from Congress.”
That’s the opening paragraph; the next one tells us that, for the most part, Tom Delay’s efforts were upheld by the Supreme Court thus leading to this inescapable conclusion:
“DeLay's philosophical arguments may have prevailed, but as a practical matter, the high court ruling will have no bearing on his criminal case, and his redistricting effort will not survive unscathed.”
I know Tom Delay is no saint but Weisman’s article comes across as little more than a vicious and petulant hit piece. Briefly: The “disciplinary slap” was for his efforts in countering a Democratic walkout of the Texas legislature (so that they wouldn’t have a quorum to vote on approval of the new districts). There was no personal enrichment – i.e. nobody found $90,000 in his freezer. His indictment for money laundering charges was at the behest of a known Democratic prosecutor who involved several grand juries until he could find one that would do his bidding. It was this indictment that led to “his fall from the House leadership ranks” because it was a required action under House Republican rules (following an indictment) - a Democrat would not be so required.
In fact, I counted four mentions of his money-laundering charges without any hint of the political taint they carry because of Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s long history of such conduct. Nor does he mention the fact that the case has slowly been withering away (a judge has already thrown out the conspiracy charges although the prosecutors have appealed that decision). Here is an analysis of the case I wrote last fall, including a timeline leading up to the indictment: Looks like another partisan prosecution by Ronnie Earle.
In assessing the possible impact of this ruling, Mr. Weisman includes comments from two, and only two, local attorneys: “Nina Perales, the Southwestern counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which argued the case” and “Richard Gladden, a Denton, Tex., lawyer involved in the case.” Actually, the latter is better described as “Richard Gladden, a Denton lawyer who represents a Democratic voter challenging the new Texas map” (Dallas Morning News).
In other words, Mr. Weisman believes no one can give us a better summary of what this case means than two lawyers from the LOSING side.
Finally, with all this gratuitous slamming of Mr. Delay, I guess Mr. Weisman just couldn’t find the room to actually give us the name of the case...you know, the one that upheld the redistricting efforts of Tom Delay; those efforts being the inspiration for much of the partisan attacks against him. The case is League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry.
The redistricting efforts in Texas were spearheaded by Tom Delay and, for the most part, were successful on a partisan basis: Texas is now a majority Republican-represented state. So, for Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post (in a piece NOT labeled "Analysis") this can only be described as the great American Greek tragedy:
“Tom DeLay's dogged quest for a new congressional map for Texas led to a disciplinary slap from the House ethics committee, his indictment on money-laundering charges, his fall from the House leadership ranks and, this month, his resignation from Congress.”
That’s the opening paragraph; the next one tells us that, for the most part, Tom Delay’s efforts were upheld by the Supreme Court thus leading to this inescapable conclusion:
“DeLay's philosophical arguments may have prevailed, but as a practical matter, the high court ruling will have no bearing on his criminal case, and his redistricting effort will not survive unscathed.”
I know Tom Delay is no saint but Weisman’s article comes across as little more than a vicious and petulant hit piece. Briefly: The “disciplinary slap” was for his efforts in countering a Democratic walkout of the Texas legislature (so that they wouldn’t have a quorum to vote on approval of the new districts). There was no personal enrichment – i.e. nobody found $90,000 in his freezer. His indictment for money laundering charges was at the behest of a known Democratic prosecutor who involved several grand juries until he could find one that would do his bidding. It was this indictment that led to “his fall from the House leadership ranks” because it was a required action under House Republican rules (following an indictment) - a Democrat would not be so required.
In fact, I counted four mentions of his money-laundering charges without any hint of the political taint they carry because of Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s long history of such conduct. Nor does he mention the fact that the case has slowly been withering away (a judge has already thrown out the conspiracy charges although the prosecutors have appealed that decision). Here is an analysis of the case I wrote last fall, including a timeline leading up to the indictment: Looks like another partisan prosecution by Ronnie Earle.
In assessing the possible impact of this ruling, Mr. Weisman includes comments from two, and only two, local attorneys: “Nina Perales, the Southwestern counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which argued the case” and “Richard Gladden, a Denton, Tex., lawyer involved in the case.” Actually, the latter is better described as “Richard Gladden, a Denton lawyer who represents a Democratic voter challenging the new Texas map” (Dallas Morning News).
In other words, Mr. Weisman believes no one can give us a better summary of what this case means than two lawyers from the LOSING side.
Finally, with all this gratuitous slamming of Mr. Delay, I guess Mr. Weisman just couldn’t find the room to actually give us the name of the case...you know, the one that upheld the redistricting efforts of Tom Delay; those efforts being the inspiration for much of the partisan attacks against him. The case is League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) v. Perry.
