But her opinion saying Texas could use total population stopped short of addressing whether it could have used some other metric.
I guess the challengers are hoping to use the ānumber of white peopleā metric, instead of just counting the total population.
Nice reporting, Tierney Sneed!
āAny state thatās thinking about doing that is going to have to think that thereās a very serious risk that theyāre going to get tied up in a lot of litigation,ā Sam Bagenstos, a University of Michigan law professor who previously worked in the Department of Justiceās Civil Rights Division, told TPM.
This has always proved an effective deterrent to reactionary legislation at the state level. /snark
What Iām getting from this is is that as per norm, folk will get whatever the heck they want from what they read.
Itās amazing how those filters/blinders work.
They could have summary said āthereās absolutely, positively, 100%, no way in heck that this will ever be changed unless thereās a change in the law by Congress, which we know will happen when pigs flyā, and this guy would still be saying āso what youāre saying is thereās still a chance!!!ā.
While I understand why the court took the approach that it didādeciding only the case before itāI would have preferred a decision that use of total population is required. So-called conservatives will certainly try to get states to adopt an eligible-voter standard, and then use language from yesterdayās decision to support their position that it is constitutional.
Conservatives really donāt care which metric is used.
Any metric other than total population will break the liberal concept that government is subservient to the people, establishing instead that government represents the people it feels are worthy of having representation.
No representation? No taxation. Our Founding Fathers insisted on that.
Iām afraid that this decision merely establishes that total population is a lawful metric. It does not establish that total population is the only lawful districting metricāand indeed reinforces the notion that the Supreme Court is very reluctant to intrude upon Statesā exercise of discretion in this area. There is nothing to stop a state from deciding to alter its total population metric in the futureāalthough of course that alteration would be subject to judicial scrutiny.
Always best to remember the immortal words of W when considering the Republican Cult: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." ____ George āDumbyaā Bush
I donāt get why liberals are trying to squeeze more juice out of this decision than is really in there. It doesnāt impose total population as the constitutionally required standard for apportionment. It just doesnāt. It simply affirms that standard as consistent with the constitution. āHintsā about how Ginsburg might feel about other standards are neither here nor there.
There are even reasons why total population as measured by census count might not be the best metric. See the discussion in the previous thread on this decision about military bases with large numbers of transient personnel, prisons and so forth. But this lawsuit was saying that you can never use total population and have to use only eligible voters, which is pretty ridiculous. (And since the constution requires enumeration ā hence the whole census thing ā thereās a good argument that if you did do eligible voters you would have to examine the birth certificate of everyone in the state in questionā¦)
āKeep the Grift Alive!ā
Not exactly. The sticking point Sneed is discussing here was a key point in the lower courtsā¦to get the suit into Court, the plantiff had to argue that the stateās were mandated to use voters instead of total population. A lot of legal scholars saw that as a fatal flaw, and it wasā¦the right wing justices indicated that they are still open to the idea that states MAY use voter rolls instead of census dataā¦just not to the idea that it be mandated.
I know it sounds like splitting a hair, but its a pretty key difference. And its reflective of a larger right wing legal strategyā¦go for the most outrageous and push the window so a follow up can get a lesser outrageous win.
The lesson here is that liberals never āwinā. Whatever gains we make, and we do and will make progress, the other side never quits. Block one avenue and theyāll find another, we can never rest on our laurels. This is why our side would be wise to capitalize on the chaos in the GOP right now. We have the opportunity to flip the Senate, get rid of the filibuster and liberalize the Supreme Court to preserve and further our gains.
The fact that Conservatives donāt want people voting explains it all for me. I donāt need to know anymore. They are unhealthy for humans and every living thing.
to experiment
And have that āexperimentā conducted by half-wits.
Hopefully, by the time the next test case rolls around, the Courtās pretend conservative half-wits will be trimmed or secret societyāed into oblivionā¦
Maybe they should give up on this whole line of attack, and just move straight to a property requirement for voting.
Iām not sure I agree with the decision. I understand why itās good for liberals, as it offers more representation to areas that tend to vote liberal.
However, I donāt see the logic or equity in having my vote count more than someone elseās just because I happen to live in a district that happens to have a large percentage of ineligible voters.
They will come at it from a State legislature angleā¦ Tea gop voter suppression advocates are doggedly white male regressivesā¦Heading back to before the Civil War and 3/5 humansā¦
The Court canāt dictate like that. It can only rule on the matter at hand. This ruling doesnāt shut down the GOP entrenchment operation but it puts it in a serious bind. Another case will have to be developed and then run up though channels to the Court. Thatās a year minimum. By then we should have a 9 member court that will put the kibosh on this crap for a very long time. This really was their only shot. It missed.
I get a hint of a notion that Chief Justice Roberts is a bit tired of the Court being used as GOP validating stamp. Heās got to live and Die with CU and Hobby Lobby. I think heās satisfied that heās paid his dues and wants to sit on a Court that leans right but isnāt in the pockets of the GOP.