Note to democrats

not named Kerry, Bayh, Biden, Boxer, Clinton, Dayton, Dodd, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Jeffords, Kennedy, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Obama, Reed, Reid, Sarbanes, Schumer, Stabenow, or Wyden.

Nice work. How's that fear of filibusters working for you? And more sure to come, sad to say.

While we're at it, might want to check out the nays on this vote as well.

[UPDATE]: The Carpetbagger sees an upside to this ruling for the dems, if they choose to use it.

Dems were waiting to see what the Supreme Court said about this practice — and now that the justices have approved mid-decade re-redistricting, the gloves may very well come off.

"If the Supreme Court decides that it's legal, not doing it would constitute a unilateral surrender," says Howard Wolfson, a former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "Democrats see the necessity of fighting fire with fire."


If so, expect fires to break out all over the place. In states in which there's a Dem governor and Dem majorities in the state legislature, districts can conceivably be re-drawn to make it much harder on GOP incumbents. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel told Roll Call, "There's going to be places all over the country where people are going to look at it."