Monday's one-paragraph order in the Texas redistricting case is both a procedural anomaly and a sharp rejoinder to those who still use the "interim" label to refer to the emergency docket.
The Texas case demonstrates the partisan nature of these decisions. As the District Court demonstrated, Texas followed the instructions of the DoJ Civil Rights Division and consciously created several majority Hispanic districts. Roberts & Co seem not to be bothered by the record. Is it too simple to say Republicans always win? Supreme Court or Judicial Politburo?
Non-attorney here. Any chance this is a precursor to overturning VRA, and this was issued in the interim for time reasons given the proximity to the coming elections?
At least in this posture, the cases aren't directly connected, as the district court here relied upon a constitutional racial gerrymandering theory, not a VRA violation. And there was no election-related reason to do this now; the December ruling already guaranteed that Texas could use this map in the 2026 midterm cycle...
So we can add reliance upon an ill-defined emergency docket ruling as another in their Supreme Court’s toolbox of self-invented methods designed and fine tuned to achieve a desired outcomes without the inconvenience of addressing matters of fact or law. (Along side “Originalism”, “History and Tradition”, and “Major Questions.”
So they are abdicating their job duties. Part of their obligation to the public is telling us why they are ruling the way they are in terms of a cases’ merits. The fact they believe we don’t deserve an explanation is a testament to their contempt for most Americans.
At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I have to say that I usually find your explications persuasive, but what really galls me is how quickly some other commentators resort to allegations of bad faith by their intellectual opponents (including you) in the absence of any real evidence. Anyway, thanks for all your (extremely helpful) work.
These days, the Robert's court calls balls and strikes before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand. The first order of business after Democrat's take back the House and Senate in November is to impeach Trump. The second order of business is to impeach and remove Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Republicans will still have a majority but there may be some recognition that the remaining insurrectionists will be insignificant when in 2029 a Democratic held Congress and Presidency expand the Court.
Tsk, children—it’s just too complex for your little minds to comprehend … so, DO AS I SAY!
Despicable abuse of power. Thank you for explaining this.
Would this court properly be called radical?
The Texas case demonstrates the partisan nature of these decisions. As the District Court demonstrated, Texas followed the instructions of the DoJ Civil Rights Division and consciously created several majority Hispanic districts. Roberts & Co seem not to be bothered by the record. Is it too simple to say Republicans always win? Supreme Court or Judicial Politburo?
Non-attorney here. Any chance this is a precursor to overturning VRA, and this was issued in the interim for time reasons given the proximity to the coming elections?
At least in this posture, the cases aren't directly connected, as the district court here relied upon a constitutional racial gerrymandering theory, not a VRA violation. And there was no election-related reason to do this now; the December ruling already guaranteed that Texas could use this map in the 2026 midterm cycle...
Hard to talk about law and the rules of order when the critical, corrupt group doesn't give a fig about rules if they are inconvenient.
Probably too busy as they were watching Judge Judy.
So we can add reliance upon an ill-defined emergency docket ruling as another in their Supreme Court’s toolbox of self-invented methods designed and fine tuned to achieve a desired outcomes without the inconvenience of addressing matters of fact or law. (Along side “Originalism”, “History and Tradition”, and “Major Questions.”
So they are abdicating their job duties. Part of their obligation to the public is telling us why they are ruling the way they are in terms of a cases’ merits. The fact they believe we don’t deserve an explanation is a testament to their contempt for most Americans.
At the risk of sounding like a sycophant, I have to say that I usually find your explications persuasive, but what really galls me is how quickly some other commentators resort to allegations of bad faith by their intellectual opponents (including you) in the absence of any real evidence. Anyway, thanks for all your (extremely helpful) work.
Thank you for this. I was confused earlier by the ruling - this helps greatly, though I have even less confidence in the court.
A very slippery slope but one this supermajority seems blithely bent on following.
Thank you. Please stay safe and well.
Great thanks for the clarity you bring to these extraordinary rulings.
What's the point of having a record or briefs or arguments when at the end of the day the only reason for a judgement is "because we said so"?
These days, the Robert's court calls balls and strikes before the ball even leaves the pitcher's hand. The first order of business after Democrat's take back the House and Senate in November is to impeach Trump. The second order of business is to impeach and remove Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Republicans will still have a majority but there may be some recognition that the remaining insurrectionists will be insignificant when in 2029 a Democratic held Congress and Presidency expand the Court.