Washington Post: why only the Supreme Court can fight gerrymandering

[Eric J in MN]

The court's understandable inclination to stay out of partisan disputes has become untenable in cases like this, because the redistricting system cannot be fixed by traditional political means. How many politicians are going to renounce the delicious power to pick their own voters? And what majority party will forswear in the name of reform a guarantee to retain the majority? Voters cannot register an objection -- cannot meaningfully support reform -- if the elections they vote in are all but predetermined.

The court should draw its own line at the Pennsylvania gerrymandering; otherwise there will be no constraints, and the political system will continue sliding toward ossified polarization. In upholding McCain-Feingold, the court took a dramatic step to ensure that American elections are not stained by the corrupting influence of money. Now it can help ensure that, in the elections McCain-Feingold will protect, voters will face a meaningful choice.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A435-2003Dec14.html


There are quotes from the arguments in the Supreme Court case at:
http://biz.yahoo.com/law/031211/8c3d1a72b7c7ba411f2f8e514a949d0c_1.html

[joeybee12]

1. I'd feel safer about them taking this up if there weren't so many putzes

on the Supreme Court.

Anybody see A Mighty Wind? Well, I think the Supreme FOLK could do a better job!!!!!!!!

[Eric J in MN]

2. I'm predicting 5-4, but I'm not sure which way (nt)

nt

[kaitykaity]

3. Lots of 5-4s going our way.

I think O'Connor is still stinging from the criticism
leveled at her for her vote in Bush v. Gore.

And it'll stick something hot and fiery in Tom Delay's most vulnerable orifice.

Good for us.