Correct if I’m wrong, I’m just starting to read these supreme court decisions straight from the court, but is the dissent that basically the case was about gerrymandering not being a “judiciable” thing and it was a political one? That we should only look at the cases and not at the ppl it would affect?
Well, no surprise there, even though their reason was that the decision is moot.
Correct if I’m wrong, I’m just starting to read these supreme court decisions straight from the court, but is the dissent that basically the case was about gerrymandering not being a “judiciable” thing and it was a political one? That we should only look at the cases and not at the ppl it would affect?