Oral arguments for the Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case were earlier today. SCOTUS blog has some thoughts on the arguments.
It seems that conservatives think the district map-challengers lack standing, that the courts should not get involved, and that if they did, they would enmire themselves in a flood of district map challenges.
The liberal coalition thinks that these maps are unconstitutional, that the Supreme Court and the federal court system are the place of last resort for such districting challenges and therefore must get involved, and that there are workable standards for adjudicating partisan gerrymandered maps.
Yeah, this is a toughy. There's a famous quote from Justice Felix Frankfurter about not getting into "the political thicket," but that was in dissent. SCOTUS has generally come down on the side of getting involved in this stuff, but it's been via tentative half measures. In trying to get involved as little as possible they've really only added to the confusion. Gerrymandering is an exception, though, or at least it should be. By definition it seeks to minimize the voices of some citizens, and so I don't see how you find political redress.