![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(From yahoo news & reading the opinions themselves)
Jon 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"in comport with" should be "in conformity with" but I can't get in to edit this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.201.122 ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The article at present states in the lede sentence: League of United Latin... is a notable Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act.
That's not the most important thrust of this case. That's not the precedential value. That's only a very narrowist interpretation of this decision. Remember, the importance of Supreme Court cases is more in their precedent than in the factual outcome of the immediate appeal at hand. For instance, Roe v. Wade isn't important because Ms. Roe was allowed to have an abortion; it's important because it established that a fundamental right to personal privacy prevents states from prohibiting certain abortions.
Putting on a law professor hat, what do we take away from the Perry case? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris? In broad terms: states may redistrict as often as they wish, and political motivations for redistricting are permissive. That's the importance of this case, much more so than the District 23 stuff. That's the lasting importance and thus primary importance of this case.
Thus, I think the lede needs to be reworked to underscore the precedential element of this case. 207.69.137.200 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says 547, but it's listed on 548 at List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 548. Does anyone know which it is?-- Cdogsimmons 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(From yahoo news & reading the opinions themselves)
Jon 20:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
"in comport with" should be "in conformity with" but I can't get in to edit this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.201.122 ( talk) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The article at present states in the lede sentence: League of United Latin... is a notable Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act.
That's not the most important thrust of this case. That's not the precedential value. That's only a very narrowist interpretation of this decision. Remember, the importance of Supreme Court cases is more in their precedent than in the factual outcome of the immediate appeal at hand. For instance, Roe v. Wade isn't important because Ms. Roe was allowed to have an abortion; it's important because it established that a fundamental right to personal privacy prevents states from prohibiting certain abortions.
Putting on a law professor hat, what do we take away from the Perry case? Anyone? Anyone? Ferris? In broad terms: states may redistrict as often as they wish, and political motivations for redistricting are permissive. That's the importance of this case, much more so than the District 23 stuff. That's the lasting importance and thus primary importance of this case.
Thus, I think the lede needs to be reworked to underscore the precedential element of this case. 207.69.137.200 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article says 547, but it's listed on 548 at List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 548. Does anyone know which it is?-- Cdogsimmons 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)