Current Events > SCOTUS rules that PA GOP must redraw district maps.

Topic List	Page List: 1
Sayoria 02/05/18 2:16:25 PM #1:	https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/05/supreme-court-allows-revamp-of-pennsylvania-electoral-map/23353415/ And this was proposed through Alito no less. First sign of justice this year. ~~(Inb4patriotsloss)~~ --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:895511933] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>https://www.aol.com/article/news/2018/02/05/supreme-court-allows-revamp-of-pennsylvania-electoral-map/23353415/ And this was proposed through Alito no less. First sign of justice this year. (Inb4patriotsloss)</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 02/05/18 4:57:39 PM #2:	Bump --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:895521790] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>Bump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 02/05/18 4:58:36 PM #3:	Good. I hope the ability to participate in partisan gerrymandering continues to erode. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:895521845] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>Good. I hope the ability to participate in partisan gerrymandering continues to erode.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/05/18 4:58:55 PM #4:	huh I thought I responded to this topic but I guess not? anyway, good news. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:895521863] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>huh I thought I responded to this topic but I guess not? anyway, good news.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 02/05/18 5:05:37 PM #6:	Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Forbidden Power/Divine Combo <cite>bover_87 posted [p:895522281] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 02/05/18 5:06:48 PM #7:	bover_87 posted... Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:895522347] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 02/05/18 5:08:52 PM #8:	CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately. Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Forbidden Power/Divine Combo <cite>bover_87 posted [p:895522488] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately.</quote> Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 02/05/18 5:09:29 PM #9:	I'm not completely convinced they won't try to just ignore the lower court anyway. --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:895522521] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>I'm not completely convinced they won't try to just ignore the lower court anyway.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/05/18 5:11:06 PM #10:	bover_87 posted... CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately. Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before? --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:895522606] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately.</quote> Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result.</quote> So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blue_Inigo 02/05/18 5:11:14 PM #11:	Good. Fuck the GOP --- "This is your last dance." <cite>Blue_Inigo posted [p:895522616] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>Good. Fuck the GOP</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 02/05/18 5:12:15 PM #12:	bover_87 posted... Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:895522674] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. </quote> The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 02/05/18 5:13:34 PM #13:	Tyranthraxus posted... bover_87 posted... CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately. Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before? More than likely they won't, but them refusing to take a case shouldn't be treated as precedent. It will be up to the PA Supreme Court to deal with that, since they're the highest court to actually rule on the case. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Forbidden Power/Divine Combo <cite>bover_87 posted [p:895522767] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately.</quote> Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result.</quote> So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before?</quote> More than likely they won't, but them refusing to take a case shouldn't be treated as precedent. It will be up to the PA Supreme Court to deal with that, since they're the highest court to actually rule on the case.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 02/05/18 5:16:46 PM #14:	CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing. The Supreme Court doesn't usually hear cases involving state constitutions. The PA GOP asked them to make an exception, and SCOTUS denied their request. They haven't struck down or upheld the lower court's ruling. --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:895522962] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. </quote> The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing.</quote> The Supreme Court doesn't usually hear cases involving state constitutions. The PA GOP asked them to make an exception, and SCOTUS denied their request. They haven't struck down or upheld the lower court's ruling.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CableZL 02/05/18 5:17:28 PM #15:	UnholyMudcrab posted... The Supreme Court doesn't usually hear cases involving state constitutions. The PA GOP asked them to make an exception, and SCOTUS denied their request. They haven't struck down or upheld the lower court's ruling. Gotcha I believe I understand this situation fully now. --- http://i.imgur.com/ByKGlJb.gif http://i.imgur.com/nZdaA8D.gif http://i.imgur.com/VBLBILg.jpg <cite>CableZL posted [p:895523013] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnholyMudcrab posted...</cite> <quote>The Supreme Court doesn't usually hear cases involving state constitutions. The PA GOP asked them to make an exception, and SCOTUS denied their request. They haven't struck down or upheld the lower court's ruling. </quote> Gotcha I believe I understand this situation fully now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/05/18 5:18:00 PM #16:	bover_87 posted... Tyranthraxus posted... bover_87 posted... CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it. The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately. Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before? More than likely they won't, but them refusing to take a case shouldn't be treated as precedent. It will be up to the PA Supreme Court to deal with that, since they're the highest court to actually rule on the case. the supreme court didn't make a ruling so there is no precedent, they denied an application to block the order to redraw the districts. That means the districts must be redrawn in accordance with the lower court's decision. This does mean they agree with the lower court's decision to redraw the districts, they just aren't setting a policy on how they are to be redrawn. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:895523050] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tyranthraxus posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Bit of a bad title: they didn't disapprove of the map, rather they just refused to disagree with it.</quote> The supreme court refused to block a lower court's order to have the maps redrawn immediately.</quote> Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result.</quote> So you think SCOTUS will be okay with it if they redraw the map to look exactly like it was before?</quote> More than likely they won't, but them refusing to take a case shouldn't be treated as precedent. It will be up to the PA Supreme Court to deal with that, since they're the highest court to actually rule on the case.</quote> the supreme court didn't make a ruling so there is no precedent, they denied an application to block the order to redraw the districts. That means the districts must be redrawn in accordance with the lower court's decision. This does mean they agree with the lower court's decision to redraw the districts, they just aren't setting a policy on how they are to be redrawn.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/05/18 5:18:19 PM #17:	Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895523066] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/05/18 5:19:38 PM #18:	Questionmarktarius posted... Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif District 7 is some grade A bullshit --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:895523142] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif</quote> District 7 is some grade A bullshit</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
bover_87 02/05/18 5:20:41 PM #19:	CableZL posted... bover_87 posted... Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing. Rereading some other articles, the decision is likely final since it's based purely on state law, which the SCotUS won't overturn unless it's contrary to federal law. Most likely the appeal was a last gasp thing, but it looks like the legislature will have to redraw the districts. --- I...I shall consume. Consume...consume everything. ~ [FFRK] rcr6 - Chosen Traveler/Forbidden Power/Divine Combo <cite>bover_87 posted [p:895523215] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>CableZL posted...</cite> <quote><cite>bover_87 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes, meaning they refused to disagree with it. The court rejecting a case doesn't automatically mean they agree with the prior result. </quote> The article says the Supreme Court denied "the emergency application to stop the immediate reworking of the electoral district boundaries." Does that also mean they "refused to disagree with the lower court's order," or just denying the emergency application? I'm not 100% up on the semantics of this kind of thing.</quote> Rereading some other articles, the decision is likely final since it's based purely on state law, which the SCotUS won't overturn unless it's contrary to federal law. Most likely the appeal was a last gasp thing, but it looks like the legislature will have to redraw the districts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 02/05/18 5:20:57 PM #20:	Questionmarktarius posted... Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif 7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:895523235] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote>Obvious gerrymandering, though. Just look at this shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_1_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_6_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_7_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_13_(since_2013).tif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_17_(since_2013).tif</quote> 7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/05/18 5:25:53 PM #21:	Sayoria posted... 7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit. 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 13 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895523534] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit.</quote> 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 13 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 02/05/18 5:29:11 PM #22:	Questionmarktarius posted... Sayoria posted... 7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit. 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 12 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif People call 7 "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" Dead. Fucking dead. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:895523738] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit.</quote> 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 12 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif</quote> People call 7 "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" Dead. Fucking dead. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tyranthraxus 02/05/18 5:31:11 PM #23:	Sayoria posted... Questionmarktarius posted... Sayoria posted... 7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit. 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 12 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif People call 7 "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" Dead. Fucking dead. it looks more like goebbels kicking dolan --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png https://i.imgur.com/dQgC4kv.jpg <cite>Tyranthraxus posted [p:895523847] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Questionmarktarius posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>7 looks insane. You can easily see that they tried working that district around certain areas. Holy shit.</quote> 7 looks like a giant scottish terrier trying to hump Pippi Longstocking. 12 looks like a fetus. 17 looks like an intermediate step of an overly-complected Transformer At the very least, 15 was clearly drawn by a Firefly fan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_15_(since_2013).tif</quote> People call 7 "Goofy kicking Donald Duck" Dead. Fucking dead. </quote> it looks more like goebbels kicking dolan</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Questionmarktarius 02/05/18 5:31:50 PM #24:	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor. <cite>Questionmarktarius posted [p:895523905] in SCOTUS rul... [t:76286071]...</cite> <quote>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pennsylvania_US_Congressional_District_12_(since_2013).tif Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > SCOTUS rules that PA GOP must redraw district maps. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > SCOTUS rules that PA GOP must redraw district maps.