What's that you say? 7 of 9 justices were appointed by Republican's? Oh...OK -
The whole gerrymandering thing stikes me as a dirty trick -- no matter which side is doing it. I would mandate a grid, bodies of water and corn fields be damned.
gerrymander - sounds like a dirty word, something you get away with behind the photocopier at the office .... but what would I know.
as to the results I will quote my 13yr old "no duh"
The vote was along partisan lines...again. Not doing much for people's perception of their impartiality. They upheld pro-Republican redistricting in Pennsylvania but struck down pro-Democratic redistricting in Georgia.
Seems the plan is working......for the crooks.
i am too mortifed to comment.
a dios miO!!
Nothing is more dangerous to our moral fiber than those damn activist judges... sigh... yawn... unless they are "activating" with a distinct Repuke slant and bias, of course.
Tina, it's like I've always said, Republicans love activist judges when they're making laws conservatives like.
Okay, but in fairness, the Court REALLY wasn't being activist here; the plaintiffs were esentially asking them to BE activist by setting a standard for "excessive partisan gerrymandering." This case was ALWAYS a long shot because it was asking the court to wade explicitly and hip-deep into politics, something it rarely does. Cong. Chet Edwards has proposed a law to ban mid-decade redistricting, but Dems in Congress should also pledge (if they win a House Majority in November) to use their power under Art. 1, Sec. 4 of the Constitution to require states to use non-partisan panels of disinterested experts to draw future congressional districts, without regard to incumbency.
Okay, but in fairness, the Court REALLY wasn't being activist here;
Well actually I wasn't really trying to suggest that at all. The point was really that with a muddled decision, the headlines were all over the map on what this really meant--activist, non-activist, conservative, liberal, win, no-win, etc...
Well, okey dokey then! For a REAL activist decision, it's hard to outdo Bush v. Gore, where the majority ignored its own precedents, stated the decision had NO precedential value, and neglected to cite a SINGLE case to support its position that the Supremes have the right to override clear state law in the absence of any real federal constitutional issue.