You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The result of siding with Pa Republicans in this case would mean that state courts could NEVER review a state legislature's congressional redistricting plan to make sure it complies with state law and the state Constitution.
Aside from the absurdity of this position it would put an even greater burden on the Supreme Court, which would get mandatory direct appeals of these cases from three-judge federal courts. THAT cannot be appealing to Chief Justice Roberts.
Isn't the real question whether it would be constitutional for the state supreme court to redraw the district lines itself if the legislature fails to adopt a compliant plan?
I don't think so. Once one recognizes the right of the state supreme court to enforce the state constitution and state laws against the legislature, it can craft an appropriate remedy, including when legislature won't act in compliance with state law.
That's probably right, but it seems there's still likely some limit on this, right?
If the state court order violates equal protection or due process, for example. See Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Might reasoning of BvG concurrence suggest greater limits? I'm thinking of scenario in which there's colorable argument state supreme court exceeded its power under state law.
that seems to me like it would blow a hole into the nonreviewability of issues of state law and turn every state case on redistricting into a Supreme Court appeal
That's the risk. Similar to the problem of recognizing judicial takings without creating a mess.
If the state courts would just be adjudicating state law/state const'l challenges to districts (which I believe Pennhurst State Hospital prevents from being raised in federal court), I don't see how ruling for the Republicans would increase the burden on the federal courts.
because some cases which would have been brought in state courts under state law and state constitutions will be federalized
Fair enough, but that partly depends on how Gill etc. turns out, and in any event it seems like, frequently when a state challenge is brought, some other plaintiffs often have a federal challenge as well (though that impression may be incorrect; I don't have any data).
Also: if “Legislature” is a clear textual command excluding state courts, why isn’t “Congress” a clear textual command excluding federal courts?
Historically, several state supreme courts -- which were effectively disempowering themselves -- adopted this construction, as did the U.S. House Comm. on Elections in resolving an election contest and a U.S. Senate committee in a report a long while ago.
Here's hoping. 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
