Won’t matter. Under the Calvinball Rule, Roberts will find that the administration has a valid claim to add the question, no matter the actual rationale.
This is exactly what everybody assumed. That there is confirmation should be a real blow to Republicans. Watch as the story is buried and buried deep by the media.
Color me surprised.
I am totally shocked.
I was so convinced by their repeated denials.
Would someone ask former speaker Boehner if he used Hofeller when he mucked up Ohio?
It’s a typo.
[quote=“greysea, post:7, topic:88434, full:true”]
It’s a typo.
[/quote]Perfect! We have a winner.
A blow to Republicans? How? They have done everything but twirl their moustaches and tie a damsel to the railroad tracks. With someone like McConnell saying, basically, we make our own rules and what are you going to do about it - and when people keep voting for them - they see that there are no consequences to their worst actions.
It now turns out that the VRA rationale was in fact partially written by a redistricting expert who had studied how excluding noncitizens from redistricting would boost the electoral advantages of non-hispanic whites and Republicans.
Since when have Republicans been anything but forthright in their efforts to disenfranchise urban and minority voters?
OK, then. You’re blue!
But this won’t change the current case that will have a decision in June, right? Oh, sorry we just found a gun registered to the accused that matches the ballistics, arguments are done. strong text Party, party, party over country.
The challengers already won their case at the trial court level, but it has been appealed and was heard by the Supreme Court last month. A final decision on whether the question will stay on the 2020 census is expected in June.
So, if this evidence was filed last Thursday, and the case has already been heard before the Supreme Court, what happens to the consideration of this new evidence? How can this “bombshell” be used in court?
I’d argue less a bombshell, and rather just confirmation of suspicions…
Yes, but it is concrete evidence.
““would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites,””
I’m sorry, but it’s abysmal that your headline does not contain some form of the word “racism.”
Yup. Prior intent is not relevant when it concerns Republicans. Democrats not so much. I should add that Justice Roberts’ concern that the supreme court will appear to be politicized is now a reality. Democrats and many independents don’t trust the fab five justices to be anything other than radical conservatives and wingers openly brag that they “own” the court, have the five in their pockets, etc. Used to be a respected institution. Sad.
Republicans plot to disenfranchise millions of us. They win by cheating. This is a major scandal but Trump sucks all the oxygen out of the air with his unhinged rants.