the point is you take these issues away from democracy and you are throwing them into the courts. pursuant to it may be my educational background, but i can only describe it social it s a measure how unfair the map is, how much it burdens can you say this? don t agree with me just because it sounds favorable. he won t in two minutes. answer the chief justice s question and say the reason they lost is because party a wins a majority of votes, party a controls the legislature. that seems fair. if party a loses a majority of votes, it still controls the legislature. that doesn t seem fair. if the supreme court holds that something is unconstitutional and federal courts can deal with the problem, then that holding
can only describe it social it s a measure how unfair the map is, how much it burdens can you say this? don t agree with me just because it sounds favorable. he won t in two minutes. answer the chief justice s question and say the reason they lost is because party a wins a majority of votes, party a controls the legislature. that seems fair. if party a loses a majority of votes, it still controls the legislature. that doesn t seem fair. if the supreme court holds that something is unconstitutional and federal courts can deal with the problem, then that holding applies across the country. i m skeptical the supreme court will find a one size fits all solution to gerrymandering. if they decide to ban
supreme court held in immigration context that the state could also legislate and complement the federal legislation, which is why you were saying they then have to argue, this impedes and burdens us. this is hard to see what it burdens. they ll have a tough time making the case. if you are in the solicitor general office, they don t bring close cases against laws that haven t been enforced yet, you can t prove it s a burden. they haven t done anything. why are they bringing the case? they are bringing it as part of the president s attempt to rally hispanic voters. bret: they are seeking preliminary injunction to prevent the law from moving forward. what about governor brewer and her pushback in all of this saying they ll be aggressively defending the law? she has just tweeted that she is asking for money to keep arizona safe in this lawsuit. what about that? it sort of makes her in a david and goliath character.
supreme court held in immigration context that the state could also legislate and complement the federal legislation, which is why you were saying they then have to argue, this impedes and burdens us. this is hard to see what it burdens. they ll have a tough time making the case. if you are in the solicitor general office, they don t bring close cases against laws that haven t been enforced yet, you can t prove it s a burden. they haven t done anything. why are they bringing the case? they are bringing it as part of the president s attempt to rally hispanic voters. bret: they are seeking preliminary injunction to prevent the law from moving forward. what about governor brewer and her pushback in all of this saying they ll be aggressively defending the law? she has just tweeted that she is asking for money to keep arizona safe in this lawsuit. what about that? it sort of makes her in a