context of a vote dilution claim, its bright-line rule “provides straightforward guidance to courts and to those officials charged with drawing district lines to comply with § 2.” Id. at 1245. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 870, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), Justices O’Conner, Kennedy, and Souter explained why the Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), had established viability as the appropriate point for finding a compelling state interest in prohibiting abortion: “legislatures may draw lines which appear arbitrary without the necessity of offering a justification. But courts may not. We must justify the lines we draw. And there is no line other 0, 293 So.2d 830 (1974) (Heflin, C.J., dissenting) (<HOLDING>). In Commonwealth v. Miller, 585 Pa. 144, 888
recognizing that standing doctrine is fundamentally rooted in respect for the separation of powers of the independent branches of government holding that due process clause is selfexecuting because it is clear that    even without any effectuating legislation all branches of government are required to comply with its terms recognizing that when other branches of government are remiss in their constitutional duties the judiciary must act recognizing that tax policy choices are appropriately left to the political branches recognizing similar duties