Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Poll: 40 percent of Illinois Catholics favor gay marriage
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* They really never had a decent case. But they did have plenty of taxpayer money to spend on lawsuits, so they appealed all the way to the top…
The U.S. Supreme Court won’t hear a challenge from Illinois Republicans who want a Democratic-drawn legislative map thrown out.
The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno and other Republicans. They say the maps drawn by Democrats were gerrymandered to benefit the party and were unconstitutional. The lower courts have thrown out their complaints.
…Adding… Coincidentally, the Tribune published an editorial yesterday calling the remap “Grand Theft Illinois.” No hyperbole there, though.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 11:57 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Poll: 40 percent of Illinois Catholics favor gay marriage
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
they also alleged that water is wet.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:05 pm
aw shucks…Gags & The GOPies bite the dust again — still — more
And this will help rid us of DeadbeatJoe, PizzaBobby, and the hedge fund hustlers fav RapidRodney
Someone needs to gather a tally on how much was shelled out to Ty and all the other lawyers for this farce and how much they sent back to Billboards.
Fire, Aim Ready
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:09 pm
So is that the end of the Connected-GOP-Lawyer Full Employment Act?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:24 pm
What’s the big deal? This is Illinois and if the Republicans had absolute power,they’d do the same thing, and they have.This is the way Illinois government operated historically. There’s nothing new about it,except for the people involved.A healthy dose of tolerance has to be maintained when looking at such an issue i.e. hold your nose-cause you’re not going to change it,just accept it.
Comment by Jimbo Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:27 pm
Really when you look at these districts, regardless of party they are sick.
We should do it the way Iowa does it and I don’t think there would be a radical difference. Of who
would be elected.
This is not rocket science.Just a gotcha moment
for each party.
Comment by mokenavince Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:29 pm
We could do it just like Iowa if we got rid of a lot of poeple and most of the poeple of color and the Voting Rights Act and all the other things that Iowa doesn’t have to consider or follow in carving up it’s dainty little population.
The process here might stink, but the Iowa model is not applicable and only shows a lack of perseptive of all of the factors involved in redistricting. Please stop using Iowa as an example.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:37 pm
At least there’s small comfort that 70% of the public would replace the redistricting system with an independent panel according to the poll cited by the editorial. Not that the public will get a chance to vote on such a measure anytime soon.
Comment by muon Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:38 pm
Yup. Let’s stick with the “stick it to the other political party” gerrymandering system instead of implementing how Iowa does it. Our state is doing so well with the current system of gerrymandering, right?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:43 pm
I agree that Iowa is a poor example due to their relatively uniform demographics. However other states like Arizona and California now use an independent commission and have to deal with Voting Rights Act issues due to their diversity. The attention will be on Ohio as they have a redistricting commission proposal on the ballot.
Comment by muon Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:45 pm
A lot better than being “Iowa” LGA
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:45 pm
@wordslinger
The Connected-GOP-Lawyer Full Employment Act is still in effect. There’s a case up this fall where the Supremes could throw out the Voting Rights Act entirely or at least water it down greatly.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:46 pm
MUON
There is no such thing as an “Independent Panel”.
Who would choose this panel? Another group of “Indepents”.
Everyone has their own bias and any selection of a panel would include their bias.
Comment by MOON Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:49 pm
MUON
I mean “Independents”
Comment by MOON Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:51 pm
“But they did have plenty of taxpayer money to spend on lawsuits, so they appealed all the way to the top…”
I don’t understand how taxpayer money could be used in this way. Thanks for any explanation.
Comment by wishbone Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:54 pm
===Thanks for any explanation. ===
Each caucus is given money to draw and defend or challenge maps.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 12:59 pm
Maybe if Pat Brady, Cross and Radogno did some real work instead of wasting time on frivolous lawsuits. Nah, makes too much sense.
Comment by just sayin' Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 1:12 pm
Illinois politicians could learn a lot from Iowa, like a balanced budget, funded pensions, ethics, morals, and values.
Comment by Rufus Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 1:44 pm
–Maybe if Pat Brady, Cross and Radogno did some real work instead of wasting time on frivolous lawsuits. Nah, makes too much sense–
They had taxpayer money to dole out to their LaSalle Street lawyer pals. They’re going to spend as much as they can get away with.
The lead lawyer at the public trough, as CFS pointed out (in his unique way), is Ty Fahner, the mouthpiece for the Civic Committee types peddling the fantasy that teachers, cops, firemen and janitors are dragging the country down.
It was never about winning the lawsuit. It was about soaking the taxpayers.
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 1:45 pm
MOON - The independent panel means members that are independent of the elected officials that will run in and serve from the panel-drawn districts. Yes, they have biases of their own, but given that the states using such panels have balanced partisan membership and supermajority vote requirements, the biases are about which communities to keep intact and which to split, not which party to favor.
Comment by muon Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 2:51 pm
My favorite politically-connected lawyers, (including ex-GOP Party honchos and ex-Governors) who are at the public trough: bond and state contract “intermediaries” and lawyers. Most of what they do is of little added value, and the state in effect pays them giant fees.
Comment by walkinfool Monday, Oct 1, 12 @ 2:53 pm