U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

And also abduct Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh first

I am livid

There should be demonstrations at every courthouse all over the nation. Anger at the court system, the Roberts court, should be a loud part of the left wing anger. Imo.

meanwhile:

Wow: #SCOTUS, in an opinion by Roberts, says the Trump administration's stated reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2010 "seems to have been contrived." The court stops just short of accusing the administration of lying. pic.twitter.com/5r6MZnvaGd

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 27, 2019

Re the census case: I guess the Court was offended by how brazen the GOP was; next time, the GOP will just burn every document.

So: Roberts blinked on the census question case b/c he doesn't want two bombshell decisions favoring his side out on the same morning.

roberts taking this swing vote role to heart!!!!

Not surprised: it’s open season on gerrymandering; say goodbye to your blue swing states.

Dems reaction will be to clutch pearls rather rather than gerrymander states they currently control into permanent majorities.

otm:

Wow: #SCOTUS, in an opinion by Roberts, says the Trump administration's stated reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2010 "seems to have been contrived." The court stops just short of accusing the administration of lying. pic.twitter.com/5r6MZnvaGd

— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 27, 2019

oops:

This seems like the same “unring the bell” logic of the Muslim ban decision. “Come back and lie to us about your motives more convincingly, please.” https://t.co/LjgGeyc6Xx

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 27, 2019

NC is lost. The hope of turning any red states purple is gone.

haha yes yes everything’s workin

Going to love being at the whims of an ever-shrinking white supremacist/ apologists minority until I’m dead

so the SC's decision overturns the previous decisions in pennsylvania, virginia, etc?

if only it was ever-shrinking

lol fair. they do seem to have a Quiverfull.

I think NC & GA will drift more blue population wise as time goes on

Roberts the Umpire.

Haven’t read the decision but I assume PA will stand because it was decided under the state, not the federal, constitution. Not sure about VA.

I think NC & GA will drift more blue population wise as time goes on

It largely won’t matter after the R majorities are locked in. Dems may be able to win statewide elections (Gov, Senators), but good luck in the House and state legislatures.

I don't feel as bleak as that. There are mathematical limits on gerrymandering -- eventually the dam bursts. Also statewide officials and courts will have some power to mitigate the damage, and states can still outlaw this in their own constitutions, which are not as hard to amend as the federal one.

The Virginia decision is not affected by this ruling fyi

first of all, this decision doesn't impact racial gerrymandering, which is what VA was about. Second, that decision was on procedural grounds, because what actually happened was that VA was forced to redraw maps and then half of the VA state legislature tried to sue to stop the redrawing, and SCOTUS said, nope, you can't have one house of the legislature maintain a suit on behalf of the entire state.

Which points to the fact that another way to get around today's SCOTUS ruling is to just dig deeper in order to connect the partisan gerrymandering to racial motivations. Which shouldn't be that hard in places like Georgia.

that still buys the GOP at least another decade, assuming you'd have to go state-by-state to "prove" that each gerrymander is racially motivated.

And we'll all be dead by then! Win!

Which points to the fact that another way to get around today's SCOTUS ruling is to just dig deeper in order to connect the partisan gerrymandering to racial motivations. Which shouldn't be that hard in places like Georgia.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), 27. juni 2019 17:38 (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I'll bet you five bucks that it's going to be impossible. Every racial gerrymander from here on out will be called partisan, and then it can't be challenged.

well that didn't happen with the 2017 Virginia decision -- or was that one still under a 4-4 court?

It got six votes including Roberts
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-680_c07d.pdf

Alito and Thomas concurred in part but I don't remember what the basis was and don't have time to read it

Some stinging legal realism in Kagan's dissent, one of the best of her career. pic.twitter.com/x9nEPsMxhV

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 27, 2019

cool, a split decision today!

republicans (temporarily) lost out on their white supremacist plan to adds a citizenship question to the census

republicans won on their white supremacist plan to make sure that they can adjust district lines to maximize the vote of old white people for the rest of our lifetimes

it's a draw!!

Roberts calls balls and strikes!

it's a draw!!

would that it were.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2018/10/RTX38JUL/lead_720_405.jpg?mod=1539041004

luckily, in the spirit of the case, the 4-judge minority opinion now becomes the rule of the land https://t.co/3297SeMiQ3

— Sam Eifling (@SamEifling) June 27, 2019

i'm still kind of in shock, tbh

this is deeply fucked up

first of all, this decision doesn't impact racial gerrymandering, which is what VA was about.

Sure it does. Effectively this decision authorizes legislatures to substitute party for race and skirt any restrictions that would be unconstitutional if they were racially based.

this is truly nauseating

https://splinternews.com/pack-the-fucking-court-1835909348

Extreme gerrymandering leaves Rs with lots of thin majorities that will crumble in a wave election. If people are as committed to getting rid of Trump as they appear to be, that could happen next year. Obviously that's a highly rosy scenario.

meanwhile

The Hill reports:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says he would give a new Democratic president’s nominee to the Supreme Court a hearing and vote in 2021, but isn’t making any promises that person would win confirmation in a GOP-controlled Senate.

Whatever he says today he'll feel free to renege n later.

John Paul Stevens dead.

Hope Trump thinks this means he's allowed to kill a Republican justice.

Stevens was a Republican

Boy oh boy is this thread's revival ever anxiety-inducing

One of the few men in public life whom I can credit for improving mine.

This bit in Greenhouse's obit intrigued me:

One plausible explanation for Justice Stevens’s growing affinity for the liberal side was his response to the polarizing discourse about the Supreme Court that emanated from the administration of President Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s. After Attorney General Edwin Meese III criticized a long series of Supreme Court precedents that had interpreted the Bill of Rights as binding not only on the federal government but on the states as well — a foundational premise of 20th-century constitutional law — Justice Stevens took him on directly. The attorney general, he said in a speech to the Federal Bar Association in Chicago in 1985, “overlooks the profound importance of the Civil War and the postwar amendments on the structure of our government.”

[snip]

His distinctive approach to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection was perhaps the best example of his disdain for doctrinal formalism.

By the mid-1970s, the court had developed an elaborate grid for evaluating claims of unequal treatment at the hands of the government. Policies that distinguished among people based on their race were subject to “strict” judicial scrutiny and were almost never upheld. Policies that simply concerned economic interests were subject to minimal scrutiny and were upheld as long as they had a “rational basis.” Policies that treated men and women differently fell somewhere in between, subject to “heightened” judicial scrutiny and required to serve an “important governmental interest.”

Justice Stevens rejected all this. “There is only one Equal Protection Clause,” he declared in 1976, concurring in Craig v. Boren, an early sex discrimination case. “It requires every state to govern impartially.” A straightforward application of that principle was all a court needed, in his view, to decide an equal protection case.

Republicans continue to Republican:

Person who’s worked high up in GOP politics for A DECADE does not know that Stevens retired years ago. The best people I’ll tell ya. pic.twitter.com/cY5Ur4mP3o

— Seth Cotlar (@SethCotlar) July 17, 2019

When Jimmy Carter dies does Walter Mondale become a former President?

Xpost she now claims she was tired and thought it said Breyer