Each state gets two senators regardless. The population of a state deems how many representatives it gets to send to the house of reperesentatives, the districts are drawn along population lines, so one district with an large urban (usually liberal) population doesn't skew the voting results one way or another when the suburban population (usually conservative) wanted different representation.
I don't really care what Texas does in it's own borders, but I recall hearing the supreme court of the United States only up-held part of the redistricting & had said there were some that would have to be changed back along the previous lines, but maybe I didn't catch the whole story.
As far as the courts being a tool of the republicans...I don't see where the Gitmo ruling plays into that since President Bush is the lead republican & wants the Gitmo military tribunals and I don't see where any of the liberals on here mention that little SCOTUS ruling...it sort of sinks the whole "the supreme court is a republican tool" arguement.
The supreme court is far too liberal & does not represent the feelings of the average U.S. citizen, the majority of which are still rather conservative (as shown by natl. election voting trends). I myself would like to see lifetime appointments for supreme court justices ended, but I fear that would play right into the hands of the treasonous liberals in the U.S. urban areas.
