I sincerely agree with the first decision. It is a massive triumph to see one branch of the federal government stand up to Bush and defend the system of checks and balances!
I also reluctantly agree with the second ruling, too. I wanted to see the redistricting get shot down as an underhanded political ploy, but I can see reason in the recent Court decision. During his confirmation hearing, Roberts said something that I agree with… that the Supreme Court can’t change the law, but only draw attention to a law that should be changed. This philosophy worked well with the eminant domain case they ruled on last year. By pointing out that the eminant domain laws legally allowed for the seizure of private land for economic redevelopment, legislatures frenzied in the coming months to pass laws protecting the now-vulnerable concept of private property. Like any good blogger, the Supreme Court instigated change simply by shining a spotlight on something that needed attention. I think that the redistricting ruling is using this same approach. The current law supports the Texas redistricting, but that doesn’t make it any less morally suspicious. Even if it is legal, the partisan redrawing of districts for short-term party gain is IRRESPONSIBLE at best. And remember, Republicans, that this sword has two edges; the Court just upheld the ability of other parties to use this against you.
Here’s a really cool online museum about the dollar coin circa 1977-2001, which I found to be notably thorough and comprehensive.
Nifty Wikipedia Thing: the Republic of West Florida
Music of the Moment: "Salt Peanuts" by Royal Crown Revue
Books I’m reading:
"Wahoo" by Richard O’Kane
"The Invisible Man" by H.G. Wells