<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20190701-112617-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/timid-restraint/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Timid Restraint</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Shulman, Theodor</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2019-07-01</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Gerrymandering</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>US Supreme Court</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-NC-ND 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>What the “partisan gerrymandering” case teaches us about the Supreme Court: it demonstrates that the Court continues to display the hallmarks of a private-law, first-generation constitutional court, albeit one that is well aware it is part of a wider, “vertically differentiated” constitutional system.</dc:description>
</dc>
