There is no coherent defense of the "Purcell principle" that can be rationalized with the Supreme Court's recent behavior in the AL and LA redistricting cases.
Thoughtful analysis like this is exactly why independent research matters. Understanding the reasoning behind legal and institutional changes is often more important than the headlines.
It is the "whatever seems expedient to keep the Republicans in power" principle, given that this political party is behind the furthering of the far rights counterrevolutionary goals. This Court has bent over backwards to facilitate their consolidation of power. If they have any other principles. I can't find them.
this court has shown somewhat less regard for lower courts than previous scotuses. could these decisions all be reconciled by a view that lower court findings of unconstitutionality are always "preliminary", and only a "final" (ie., scotus) ruling overrides purcell?
Ah the Fifth Circuit. When I was in law school at Georgetown, the most reversed Circuit was the Ninth. Our Crim Law professor suggested that the opening lines of cert petitions from the Ninth could be "This petition is on appeal from the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, there are additional reasons the decision should be reversed."
Is there some way for us to move back from the insanity created out of whole cloth (that include Purcell, History and Tradition, Major Questions, etc.) to a place where the Supreme Court, instead, relies on facts (established through lower courts rather than ignored at the highest court) and law?
This whole use of/non use of Purcell smacks of a total political bias of Republicans as a wholle. The deny use of a tradition or a law when it goes against them but uses it when it suits their purposes. As in the Merrick Garland decision by the Senate 9 months before an election being to close to make a nomination to the acceptance of Amy Barrett's nomination, was it just a week before the inauguration of trump? They use the same playbook on the Supreme Court--accept if you like, find a reason to reject if not.
I make much of the 5th Circuit's batting average during the current term. (Maybe the fact the Court accepted 10 cases from the circuit is as telling as the outcomes.) Back in the day, my friends on the Right ranted about the 9th Circuit, ignoring completely the fact that circuit size explained at least in part why so many 9th Circuit cases ended up before the Court. That explainer doesn't really exist here.
To the adage “Justice delayed is Justice denied” should be added, “ Injustice accelerated is Injustice reinforced.” I also propose applying the phrase “Pretzel Logic” to describe the Supreme Court’s behavior and decisions. This was an overarching theme for a 1970s song and album by Steely Dan representing convoluted, illogical reasoning. Or perhaps “cart before the horse,” focusing on a result before properly considering the cause. In Chief Justice Roberts’ favorite baseball analogy, it’s a strike, now let’s check the boundaries of the strike zone.
Or is the principle that there are no consistent principles? Do most Supremes say or think that the law is what they decide it is today – although there may be differences of opinion whether that is superseded by what the President says it is today, i.e., his agenda, which may explain the few decisions in which the Supreme Court has rejected his position? And farewell stare decisis, instead neglegere quae decreta sunt (ignore what has been decided) depending on the occasion. Does the choice lie between rule by lawyers and rule by an autocrat/ dictator? I don’t think or hope so, provided more of us exercise our right to vote to stop and reverse the ongoing deterioration of US democracy, motivated by our increasing awareness of the need, and how to do so. We are being informed by the valiant consistent efforts of Professor Vladeck to educate us in his sphere of knowledge and expertise, as well as those of others in their fields of knowledge including science, history, geopolitics, economics, philosophy and others. After all, is not the idea that we, the people are sovereign, that which is the “exceptional” characteristic of the US polity, even though it has taken us a long time, and the process is still incomplete, for the term “people” to include all humans ?
I think the "Purcell principle" is really two different principles under one name. The liberals' Purcell principle is simply that courts shouldn't make any changes to an electoral map shortly before an election. The conservatives' Purcell principle is that courts shouldn't *impose* changes to an electoral map *against a state's will* shortly before an election. But the conservatives consider themselves free to *unimpose* an electoral map shortly before an election (by vacating a lower court decision that imposed that map against the state's will).
With the recent ruling in the Alabama case, I now strongly support a restructuring in the Supreme Court. The six are political hacks, only sometimes restrained by the constitution they should be embarrassed, but they’re not.
Thoughtful analysis like this is exactly why independent research matters. Understanding the reasoning behind legal and institutional changes is often more important than the headlines.
It is the "whatever seems expedient to keep the Republicans in power" principle, given that this political party is behind the furthering of the far rights counterrevolutionary goals. This Court has bent over backwards to facilitate their consolidation of power. If they have any other principles. I can't find them.
this court has shown somewhat less regard for lower courts than previous scotuses. could these decisions all be reconciled by a view that lower court findings of unconstitutionality are always "preliminary", and only a "final" (ie., scotus) ruling overrides purcell?
Ah the Fifth Circuit. When I was in law school at Georgetown, the most reversed Circuit was the Ninth. Our Crim Law professor suggested that the opening lines of cert petitions from the Ninth could be "This petition is on appeal from the Ninth Circuit. Moreover, there are additional reasons the decision should be reversed."
Is there some way for us to move back from the insanity created out of whole cloth (that include Purcell, History and Tradition, Major Questions, etc.) to a place where the Supreme Court, instead, relies on facts (established through lower courts rather than ignored at the highest court) and law?
This whole use of/non use of Purcell smacks of a total political bias of Republicans as a wholle. The deny use of a tradition or a law when it goes against them but uses it when it suits their purposes. As in the Merrick Garland decision by the Senate 9 months before an election being to close to make a nomination to the acceptance of Amy Barrett's nomination, was it just a week before the inauguration of trump? They use the same playbook on the Supreme Court--accept if you like, find a reason to reject if not.
I make much of the 5th Circuit's batting average during the current term. (Maybe the fact the Court accepted 10 cases from the circuit is as telling as the outcomes.) Back in the day, my friends on the Right ranted about the 9th Circuit, ignoring completely the fact that circuit size explained at least in part why so many 9th Circuit cases ended up before the Court. That explainer doesn't really exist here.
To the adage “Justice delayed is Justice denied” should be added, “ Injustice accelerated is Injustice reinforced.” I also propose applying the phrase “Pretzel Logic” to describe the Supreme Court’s behavior and decisions. This was an overarching theme for a 1970s song and album by Steely Dan representing convoluted, illogical reasoning. Or perhaps “cart before the horse,” focusing on a result before properly considering the cause. In Chief Justice Roberts’ favorite baseball analogy, it’s a strike, now let’s check the boundaries of the strike zone.
Or is the principle that there are no consistent principles? Do most Supremes say or think that the law is what they decide it is today – although there may be differences of opinion whether that is superseded by what the President says it is today, i.e., his agenda, which may explain the few decisions in which the Supreme Court has rejected his position? And farewell stare decisis, instead neglegere quae decreta sunt (ignore what has been decided) depending on the occasion. Does the choice lie between rule by lawyers and rule by an autocrat/ dictator? I don’t think or hope so, provided more of us exercise our right to vote to stop and reverse the ongoing deterioration of US democracy, motivated by our increasing awareness of the need, and how to do so. We are being informed by the valiant consistent efforts of Professor Vladeck to educate us in his sphere of knowledge and expertise, as well as those of others in their fields of knowledge including science, history, geopolitics, economics, philosophy and others. After all, is not the idea that we, the people are sovereign, that which is the “exceptional” characteristic of the US polity, even though it has taken us a long time, and the process is still incomplete, for the term “people” to include all humans ?
I think the "Purcell principle" is really two different principles under one name. The liberals' Purcell principle is simply that courts shouldn't make any changes to an electoral map shortly before an election. The conservatives' Purcell principle is that courts shouldn't *impose* changes to an electoral map *against a state's will* shortly before an election. But the conservatives consider themselves free to *unimpose* an electoral map shortly before an election (by vacating a lower court decision that imposed that map against the state's will).
With the recent ruling in the Alabama case, I now strongly support a restructuring in the Supreme Court. The six are political hacks, only sometimes restrained by the constitution they should be embarrassed, but they’re not.