ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Quotables: The redistricting decision, Round II

| Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2018, 9:10 p.m.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito  (AP Photo | Cliff Owen)
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (AP Photo | Cliff Owen)

Pennsylvania's GOP got a Supreme rejection it its attempt to block a state Supreme Court ruling, which requires the state's Legislature to immediately redraw the Keystone State's congressional map. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito nixed the Republicans' request without explanation, probably because this matter involves the state's highest court ruling on the state's Constitution (although the U.S. Supreme Court is considering two cases that test whether partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional). So now Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf and the Legislature have until Feb. 15 to draw new district lines. Otherwise the Democrat-majority state Supreme Court will draw the lines itself.

“The U.S. Supreme Court correctly recognized that there is no reason to delay implementing the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's order. Now, all parties must focus on getting a fair map in place.”

Tom Wolf

Pennsylvania's governor

“I think a fair map in Pennsylvania can give Democrats an opportunity to win up to five seats in Pennsylvania.”

Tom Perez

Democratic National Committee chairman

“Obviously the Legislature is a political body. We have Republicans and we have Democrats. It's a political body by definition. So they've put that in the hands of a political body to make decisions. If you look at maps in Illinois, you look at maps in Maryland, I think you'll see maps that have interesting lines as well that favor (Democrats). Because they were in control.”

Jake Corman

State senate majority leader

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me