Mean, mean, mean. Separated at birth. Ursula vs. Pregnant Britney.

The Supreme Court delivers a sweeping, sharp, major rebuke (I couldn't find "stinging" for some reason) to the Bush administration in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. (Opinion here.) The opinion rules that the military tribunals set up for Guantanamo detainees is illegal (I think that's the right term). The court did not rule on whether the detention is legal or not, just that the judicial process offered to the detainees by the administration is insufficient given their rights under the Geneva Convention and military law.

I'm partial to the Bush argument of course, but reading the opinion is fascinating if you're into legal/talmudic disucussions about whether "international" literally means between nations or means taking place in different countires. Or whether "regular" means "permanent, standard" or "occassional, consistent". Or whether a state of war/hostilities started with Osama's declaration to kill Americans in 1996 or with the Authorization of Force issued by Congress in 2001 or somewhere in between. I think Justice Thomas' dissent is very logical and well laid out. If you don't think that politics or personal beliefs play a role in Supreme Court decisions, reading this opinion will disabuse you of that notion quickly.

Don't forget tomorrow at 10AMET - Quarterfinals Classic: Germany vs. Argentina.

From the WSJ, why Tom DeLay's gerrymandering in Texas, recently OK'd by the Supreme Court, is still more representative of the people's will than New York's current districting setup.

The New York Times, still failing to produce any Shakespeare, blasts the Supreme Court for mostly upholding a Republican gerrymander of Texas' congressional districts:

The new lines were drawn in such a partisan way that Republicans ended up with nearly two-thirds of the state's Congressional delegation. . . . It is disappointing that [the court] could not have come up with a decision yesterday that had a greater appearance of fairness.

Well, let's take a closer look. Under the previous, Democratic gerrymander (with which the Times finds no fault), Texas' congressional delegation consisted of 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans. After the gerrymander, Republicans had a 21-11 majority.

The new delegation, to be sure, favors the majority party more lopsidedly than the old one did. But does that mean it is less "fair"? If so, then New York's congressional delegation, in which the Democrats hold a 20-9 majority (i.e., more than two-thirds), is even less "fair" and more "partisan."

But of course Texas is a Republican state and New York is a Democratic one. You would expect the party that dominates a state to elect more representatives. How many more? Well, let's take the 2004 presidential results as our benchmark. Here are the percentages of the two-party vote Bush and Kerry got in Texas and in New York:

	Bush	Kerry
Texas	61.5%	38.5%
New York	40.7%	59.3%

Now, here is how the victorious presidential candidate's party fares in each state's congressional delegation, and the difference from the presidential share:

	Share	Diff.
Texas old (R)	46.9%	-14.6%
Texas new (R)	65.6%	+4.1%
New York (D)	69.0%	+9.7%

So by this measure at least, Texas' new gerrymander better represents the voters' preferences than New York's, which in turn does so better than Texas' old gerrymander. It is disappointing that the Times could not have come up with an editorial that had a greater appearance of fairness.