-->

Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Florida Judge Blocks Democrats Attempt to Go Against the Will of the People

In the 2010 elections, Floridians voted for Amendment 6, also known as the Fair Districts Amendment by an overwhelming majority. Informed voters across Florida see Amendment 6 as a way to prohibit career politicians from re-drawing congressional districts that protect incumbents and enable one-party control. Florida is a very divided state in that while it is considered to be a conservative red state when looking at complete voting statistics, some districts have remained under Progressive/Liberal Party control for decades. Amendment 6 aims to correct that type of gerrymandering by the fake Democrats to remain in power. The people spoke up and voted for the Fair Districts Amendment in 2010, and low and behold, here comes long-time corrupt Congresswoman Corrine Brown (D) and the Liberal race-baiter in chief of Miami Florida,  Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (P for progressive) to file a lawsuit against the citizens of Florida and their vote for Amendment 6.

Corrine Brown, seen speaking on the House floor in the picture above just doesn’t seem capable of understanding the principles of a free Republic where Democracy and the will of the voting public are not to be denied in any way, shape or form. We voted for Amendment 6, and it is nothing short of disgusting on how you deem yourself so all-powerful that you can file a lawsuit against the very will of the people here on Florida. Apparently a U.S. District Court Judge agrees with that statement. From The Florida Independent we see this:

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro this morning rejected the lawsuit challenging one of Florida’s “Fair Districts” amendments.
The lawsuit was brought by Reps. Corrine Brown, D-Jacksonville, and Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Miami, the day after 63 percent of Florida voters approved Amendment 6 at the ballot box last fall. The lawsuit hinged on whether the U.S. Constitution bars Florida voters from restricting how the state Legislature chooses to redraw congressional district lines ( emphasis mine)

Judge Ungaro explains to Brown and Diaz-Balart that no, prior supreme court decisions do not support their argument, but in fact, they prove them wrong:

“Supreme Court case law, consistent with the original debate over the Elections Clause, contradicts plaintiffs’ and plaintiff-intervenor’s various arguments that amendment VI is unconstitutional, and supports the defendant’s and defendant intervenors’ claim that Amendment VI is a valid regulation of the legislative process,” Ungaro concludes.

To even the most naive of observers that statement is pretty much cut and dried: Their frivolous lawsuit has no merit, yet in their desperate power-grab to remain in power by gerrymandering congressional districts these two Liberals say they will appeal the judges decision. They may as well be telling the citizens of Florida to go to hell when looking at their actions here. We have spoken at the ballot box and apparently the people of the Miami area and Corrine Brown’s district need to reemphasize their vote by looking for better candidates in 2012. As a matter of fact, there is an excellent candidate running against Corrine Brown in 2012, a man who actually respects the wishes of the people and the U.S. Constitution, one Mike Yost. You can check him out here, and show support for his pledge to restore honesty and integrity back into a Government Of the people, For the people and By the people, as our Constitution mandates. Check back in with us here at CDN in the Florida politics section later on this week, as I will be doing an in-depth interview with Mr. Yost and will publish it no later than Friday.

.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DJ Redman says:

    Diaz-Balart is a progressive, no matter the D or R. In researching this article, I saw no less than 12 Democrats making statements supporting Brown’s lawsuit here in the Florida news and on TV. I will, however change Diaz-Balarts letter to a “P for progressive,’ if it pleases folks right now. I do apologize for the mis-statement there, but while following Florida politics here and seeing Diaz-Balart speak, I do not refer to him as a conservative Republican. Also, If amendment 6 is “opposed by all democrats” as stated there, then how in the world was this blatant attempt to ignore the wishes of the voters allowed to move forward? Surely with the entire Democratic Party against it, leadership would have told her to drop the lawsuit .That simply didn’t happen. A lack of stated objection is just as much supporting the lawsuit, as it could be to say that alll Dems supported Amend 6. the facts do not line up with the rhetoric there.

    Further more, Diaz-Balart now sits in his brother’ seat, while Daddy was a career politician in… Cuba.
    .Diaz-Balart was born in Havana, Cuba to the late Cuban politician Rafael Diaz-Balart and Hilda Caballero Brunet. His aunt, Mirta Diaz-Balart, was the first wife of Fidel Castro. Her son, and his cousin, is Fidel Ángel “Fidelito” Castro Díaz-Balart. His uncle is the Cuban-Spanish painter, Waldo Díaz-Balart.

    Maybe we should label Diaz-Balart as coming from the Republican Party of Cuba then? As stated above, I do not approve of race-based politics that some pols. use to remain in power. That stuff belongs to the Liberals running the DNC today, not the Republican Party. That also leaves out the idea that ALL LEGAL citizens are equal in America.

    Under Lincoln Diaz-Balart we discover some more truth: In 1982, he ran for a Florida House of Representatives seat for District 113 as a Democrat and lost to the Republican, and this: Díaz-Balart as well as his immediate family were all members of the Democratic Party. Lincoln the brother went from being a staunch Democrat to Republican around 1993 to win elections. That is why I subconsciously referred to Mario as a Dem, in listening to him, he sure isn’t a conservative, as proven by his part in the lawsuit in an attemt to avoid getting beat in a primary next year. Yes we have challengers to run against him, several of them.

    Thanks for your input and discussion. Vickie, Max, and Andy. Bottom line is that both of these misfits need to be kicked out of Congress in 2012, and we the people will make it happen by informing people of just what certain Tyrants are doing today. Only a power-hungry, self-serving tyrant would sue to overturn the people of Florida for voting for a Fair Districting Amendment!

  2. WillofLa says:

    “See, in order for America to become a Socialist nation, we have to give up all the business about “we the people”. In order for Socialism to succeed, it can’t have the rights of the people in the way. If a politician says something is, then that has to be accepted as law. Under Socialism a judge is the only way that bad laws can be corrected. But that is if that judge is no the side of Socialism and not on the side of the Constitution. We don’t need any Constitution anyway. That’s just some holdover from another time in the countries history when something like that was needed. We don’t need anything like that now since people are so much more sophisticated more than our ancestors were. We are enlightened, they were not. We see where people would be much happier than they are now if Socialists were running things and not have representatives going by a piece of old paper. That old paper where people had the right and duty to run the government just can’t be applied to our society these days. It just doesn’t apply.”

    This is how liberals, who are really the very Socialist who are trying to get rid of our Constitution, talk. This is their message. And that message is coming from the New World Order people who want to control human life on planet Earth. And they aren’t going to accept the “will of the people” as the last word on anything. How could they? When they are so much more smarter than we are, and have lived more of life than we ever will, we have to relinguish our sense of right and wrong over to them. Oh yeah? BS!! We will not accept the control that these New World Order whacko’s are preaching to us and everyone else around the world. But, it’s mostly us here in America that they believe need controlling more than anyone. That is because we’re the nation that was created for it’s people to be free, free to do as they wish, free to build their own wealth, free to make their own laws, and free to declare what laws are good and which ones are bad. We the people can stop bad laws by having our representatives repeal the bad ones, and where we have the right to vote “NO” on any law we believe is a wrong law. And districting so that only the Socialists have the right to represent whoever they want, and have the right to take the right to say no to any law We the People believe cannot become law. away from us, is something everyone of us should fight against every chance we get.

  3. WillofLa says:

    Yes, we here in Louisiana have just gone through the most twisted redistricting we’ve ever seen. It was disgustingly one sided as the leftist Democrats in Baton Rouge fought it out to see who was going to end up with what, since we lost two US Congressman’s seats from a loss of representatives districts due to Hurricane Katrina wiped out two districts down in South Louisiana. There’s no people living there anymore for a representative to represent. So the politician’s down in Baton Rouge had to reshape the entire state and give a lot more area for the remaining representatives. Now, my Congressional and Senatorial reps. have huge area’s to have to represent now. What I don’t understand is, why can’t we get those two districts back by just dividing up the districts that remained after eliminating the two down in South Louisiana by reshaping those districts in South La. and not reshaping the entire state and making the districts larger for the remaining reps.?

    Ah, but that’s just what someone proposed. And guess what? In order to do that would take BLACK constituents away from BLACK representatives, and move them into two new districts that had more White people in them! The Blacks screamed to high heaven!! “This is just nothing but racism!!” “This is taking representatives away from Black folks, and that constitutes nothing more than White people taking the right to vote away from Blacks!!” “Taking districts away from the “poor”(See, liberals are always calling Blacks ‘poor’, so that Blacks can keep their “entitlement” mentality, and Democrats can continue to represent that mentality.) will set back providing representation of the “poor” 80 years to a time when Huey Long fought so hard to make sure that the poor were “equally” represented!!”

    See, liberals are always whinning about how “unequal” everything is. Yeah, everything that Whites are trying to establish in order that everything is as fairly spread out as possible. It’s impossible to have districts perfectly “equal” in having one representative for just Blacks, and a different race (White) representative for everyone else. Liberals are saying give the White representatives to everyone else, but keep Blacks represented by only Black legislator’s. Yeah, Democrat legislator’s only. See, liberal Democrats believe that they are the only one’s who are “qualified” to serve Blacks since they are the one’s who came up with all the garbage for Blacks that hasn’t done a damn thing for them to make their lives better other than keep them poor and wanting. Liberals call the being “equal” treatment, and if there is one more White person in that district than Blacks, then the Democrat politician’s down in Baton Rouge believe that representation for the poor Blacks in that district is unfair, and needs to be changed, to Democrat, not anyone else.

  4. Vickie Maxwell says:

    “Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (D)” is a Republican. To me this shows, it doesn’t matter if there’s (D) or(R) after their name….WE THE PEOPLE voted and they should respect that!!

    • Andy Richardson says:

      Vickie is correct – Diaz-Balart is a Republican. Taking it a step further, Amendment 6 is opposed by one Democrat, Brown, and the entire Republican Party of Florida. The Democratic Party of Florida supports the redistricting law.

      • Debra says:

        In 1992, the Republicans “made a deal with the devil”, if you would, to draw 3 Minority access Districts. The result was 3 Black Congressional Representatives were elected from Florida. In 2002, the Diaz-Balart District happened as the Brother to Mario was wanting to run for Congress. So one of the NEW Districts that year, out of the 2 drawn, became a Hispanic Access District in S. Florida.

        Now, what is bothering these “Representatives” about Amendment 6 is that is a recent SCOTUS Ruling, Bartlett v. Strickland, IF a District falls below 50% plus one person, then there is no obligation for that District to remain a “minority access” District. They fear being drawn out of their cushy little seats by the requirements of Fair Districts where there cannot be favoritism to one Party over another or an incumbent over a challenger. Yes, Districts MUST NOW BE COMPACT and neither has one that really meets that criteria. ALSO, in the GIngles ruling, RACE cannot be the MAIN criteria for drawing Districts- the 3rd District is without question, a racial gerrymander for the sole purpose of keeping the seats AROUND it in Republican hands. It is called “bleaching” and that is what the deal in 1992 did to create the 3rd District- made every OTHER District around it a Republican District.

        People might not care about that 3rd District, but they really should, It is one of the most blatant examples of gerrymandering in the nation. IF we the people of this state ALLOW that to happen again, then WE deserve the “Corrine Browns” of the world. At LEAST make ALL Candidates run for their seat with ideas and debate in the Public Arena. As it stands NOW, you only need the right letter after your name and win a Primary (maybe) to be elected to that office.

        It has been suggested that one of the major reasons we are such a polarized nation and in many cases don’t feel represented in Washington or our State Houses, is BECAUSE of gerrymandering. I would agree. ANYTIME you shut down debate when running for office, or place a Candidate in the position where they no longer need to campaign for their seat, many people WILL feel unrepresented. After all, the Incumbent doesn’t have to defend their positions- but ONLY get their block of voters to the polls.