Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional?
Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years.
SCOTUS literally just de-fanged the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part protecting minority representative districts.
That's why we recently saw every red state pass new congressional district maps which split up minority representative districts and combine the pieces with deep red rural districts.
We will see how that plays out. In this year's elections, Trump is going to be so unpopular that unless he sends goon squads to the polls, the gerrymander might collapse.
In the future, I would certainly like to see a move to smaller, less-stable districts to discourage this behavior.
Indeed; the whole appeal of a gerrymander is essentially to trade depth for breadth in your votes, and if the vote swings just a tiny bit too far the other way, it makes your district count incredibly brittle.
As for the future: yes, absolutely. Uncap the House; let's have districts with 50k-100k people, tops.
Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled.
They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws.
Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional.