[deport]

Too much misinformation floating at this time...... Hopefully things will settle down and accurate data will become available... Note the following from the article in post 159 DMN ......

Attorneys for the losing side could not be reached immediately after the ruling, but they are expected to appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, which the law requires to accept the case for review.

And from the Chronicle in post #142

Democrats criticized the decision and promised an immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Five of the court's nine justices would have to agree to hear the appeal to halt the plan's use in the 2004 elections.

[Dog Gone]

My understanding is that there is an automatic review of the panel's decision, but it can simply be a paper review with no hearing or arguments. But I don't know where the Houston Chronicle came up with the idea that five justices would have to vote certiorari to hold a full hearing.

That's wrong. Four could do it. And I doubt it will happen.

[WOSG]

I heard judge Abbott speak on this question of a 'stay'.

Distinguish 2 things: Hearing the case, and getting a 'stay' of the current lines are 2 different things.
A stay that enjoins (stops) use of the new districts; and, 2, hearing an appeal of the case itself just means the USSC will hear the arguments and decide if the appeals court ruled correctly. The former wont happen, the latter will.

The danger from the latter is that the wording of the decision practically is inviting 'guidance' from the USSC on these matters. The USSC could hear the case and rule next year, after the 1374C lines are used in this election.

The Dems will ask for a stay, the State will argue against, and unless the USSC is off their gourd, no stay will be granted. This appeals ruling makes is a certainty that
these lines will be used, at least for the 2004 election.

Count on a good pickup of seats for GOP in the House.