In GOP parlance, is that the same as not favoring the GOP?The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a case brought by Republican officials in Pennsylvania challenging the state Supreme Court’s ability to redraw their congressional redistricting plan.
The state court tossed out the 2011 legislatively enacted plan in 2017, finding that it violated the state Constitution by enhancing the Republican Party’s representation in Congress.
But in their appeal to the Supreme Court, Pennsylvania officials argued the court exceeded its power in redrawing the maps, which they claimed now favored Democratic voters.
The Hill
The GOP is all about states' rights until the states don't suit them.[T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court invalidated the 2011 Plan and implemented its own solely on newly created state-law grounds,” they said in court briefs.
“But if federal supremacy means anything, it plainly favors legislation founded on federal law over legislation founded solely on state law, not the other way around.”
Surprising. Also, shouldn't they have to give an explanation when the refuse to hear a case?[Supreme Court justices] refused to hear their appeal and provided no explanation for their decision.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment