As an attorney, I have so little faith in the SCOTUS at this point that I expect this to be the “bone” they’re throwing us before basically setting the GOP loose with a gerrymandering bazooka.
Also: “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority’s opinion, where she was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch.”
WTF?
Yeah, that this vote was a 5-4 tells us everything we need to know about this 4-5 of the justices.
I sincerely hope you are wrong… however, seeing Thomas and Gorsuch on the proper side of this issue, you could be right
Very unusual, technical decision that has nothing to do with how the Court will decide upcoming gerrymandering cases. A trans-ideological majority comprising Ginsburg, Thomas, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Kagan? A minority in which Breyer and Alito find common cause? Won’t happen again.
Yes an no…it’s a seriously bizarre mix this time. I really don’t know what to make of it other than knowing that Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh are most certainly of the mind that anything resembling minority voting rights being defended at the expense of the white Christian hegemony must be shot down because we live in a magically post-racial Amurikkka.
Let’s note that the junior-goose-stepper Alito is on the wrong side of history…again. He is pathetically desperate to be a member of the WASP Elite like Roberts. But he never will be, and that irks him so much that he over-reacts with bully-boy behaviors.
I thought at first it was either dandruff or headlice that had me scratching my scalp after reading this one…
When it comes to directly addressing the issue of whether the GOP should be allowed to do things like redistrict based on citizens only or go hog wild suppressing minority and “urban” votes and/or diluting their voting power, I have no doubt Gorsuch and Thomas will be right there with the other 3. Roberts has long had his sights on anything providing even a whiff of “affirmative action”, such as laws that specifically give “special rights” to minorities to be protected when redistricting takes place.
Is it possible that Gorsuch and Thomas voted this way with an eye to frustrating oversight by the US House? I.e., “no, you can’t get the courts to enforce your subpoenas, because the Senate objects.”
Am I right to worry that the principle that a chamber of congress can only have standing if the other chamber agrees could be a dangerous principle?
Wow, not going to touch the whirly gig makeup of this decision with a 10 foot pole. (Wanted to work in poll tax).
What they’re doing is reducing standing. That means that a party that has the governorship and one house of the legislature can drop opposition to an outside lawsuit. Think of all the suits that loony right types have been bringing against voter registration lists, against local environmental rules blah blah. (Now it’s possible that members of the virginia house could have sued in their individual capacities, but not as the legislative body)
It also might mean this gerrymander was so racist that really.
The law of unintended consequences definitely applies here.
Pretty narrow ground. And if you believe that there really are “conservative” and “liberal” factions on the court, a weird line-up of justices. The fact that Roberts dissented makes me worried for the other gerrymandering cases.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority’s opinion, where she was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch.
So Gorsuch joined the good guys here. The world is always filled with surprises.
My exact first thought, too. What are they going to slam us with after this?
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority’s opinion, where she was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch.”
I could see Thomas joining in to stop a racial gerrymander. But Gorsuch? But not Breyer? Glad I don’t wager on these things.
No, it’s not the same thing. The Senate has literally nothing to do with House subpoena power. The Senate neither objects or approves a House subpoena. They are completely removed from that process.
Says you. If five old jerks say different, who’s to stop them?
I mean, we can play that game all day. They could make it legal to kill people who aren’t Republicans too, I guess. I’m just pointing out a fact. House subpoenas aren’t contingent upon Senate approval. Never have been. The House has the power to subpoena as does the Senate and the other chamber has no say in whether or not a subpoena can be issued.