Itās not unreasonable to regard this as one of the early cases toward determining to what extent SCOTUS will allow Republicans to deter voting by certain of āthose peopleā.
Sadly, this to me wreaks of the SC stepping into a case which at the moment seems to be damaging the administration. If so, is their purpose simply to put a stop to the proceedings?
Now we will see how far the Federalist Society and their Confederate States of America cohort tide has risen.
Presumably Ross doesnāt want this evidence to be admitted and is asking the Trump-Roberts Court to micromanage the trial in his favorāand the ācourtā is happy to oblige. Hard to tell, as usual TPMs legal reporting leaves something to be desired.
Theyāre in a bind. Because theyād like to limit consideration to the (falsified) official record in this case, but that sets a precedent that will make it harder for judges to consider extraneous evidence when they want to strike down other regulatory decisions that are less favorable to rich republicans. (Imo, of course).
The court case is basically over ā Admitting articles written by Census Bureau employees, Judge Furman closed the trial record of the citizenship question challenge ā except for the Ross testimony (if allowed).
Itās fairly clear from the evidence, so far, that:
- Ross lied about why the citizenship question was put into the 2020 census
- Sessionsā DOJ was ordered to provide cover (which they did, sloppily)
- Ross lied about this not affecting participation
- Republicans are doing everything they can to hold on to power by changing the rules
The trial court may have enough to rule without the contested evidence. So if the trial court doesnāt refer to it, the SCOTUS hearing should be moot at least insofar as the evidentiary issue is concerned.
Yes, I think that last stake was driven in the heart of that vampire when the Bureauās chief scientist testified that the action seemed purely political to him.
I have no idea why they are hearing this case. Trying to find the Mandamus briefs. It only takes 4 justices to hear a case, and its possible they have 4, are hoping to pick up a 5th. But the whole thing makes the Court look political. Furhman held a trial, and will issue an opinion. Any issues can be resolved in reviewing that opinion, so the grant of cert really ignores the proper role of the surpeme court.
That said, they stopped Rossās depostions, which looked nakedly politcal, but not Goreās depo (which hurt DOJ badly). I just donāt see the Court issuing a ruling saying that evidence the DOJ is lying canāt be considered. That ruling would show that Roberts (who would need to sign it to get 5 votes) was nakedly partisan. The result would be to destroy his carefully cultivated image of not being a partisan hack.
Roberts plays the long game, and I just donāt see him destroying his reputation over an issue like this, especially when the Dās in congress can just defund the question being asked.
The supreme court is not better than the Senate right now. You have a Justice that has clearly stated that democrats are his enemies, and three others that are not as dumb as to state it publicly but believe itā¦It all comes down to what Roberts thinks, and he is pretty much a believer than only White Christian Males are the only ones that can be fair.
To be fair, (a) this stuff is really complex, and (b) this is an AP piece.
Only a few āmediaā folks really understand the cert rules and the rules by which cases are taken. Totenberg knows them, Toobin does, but outside of that few do.
I have at this point done 4 briefs adressing the cert standards to the US Surpeme Court when dragged up there, so I know them well. But even for me, its hard. I would need to read the underlying briefs to see what was being asked. No way any reporter (who is also not likely to be a supreme court specialist) can untangle these issues easily.
I predict 5-4
Just a wild guess
especially when the Dās in congress can just defund the question being asked
Well they canāt though, unless they stick it into a bill that can pass the Senate and be signed, right?
The Question Presented is whether itās proper under the ADA for the court to consider or demand evidence beyond the administrative record. Iām hazarding a guess that the answer to that will be (for 5) no. Thereās no need for consistency ā one might compare bakers with travel bans to see that-- but the result could be pretty important for a whole host of potential regulatory initiatives.
I do agree that procedurally, itās very strange for them to stick their noses in at this time. I hope Kelly knows whatās coming: he needs to affirmatively disbelieve the government witnesses and say things like āHaving observed their demeanorā¦ā etc so that they have to defer to his discretion, or at least do gymnastics to avoid challenging it directly.
From the things that the judge has said and what happened in the trial, I have a feeling the opinion will be written in a way that doesnāt require the evidence that they are going to try to review. Though, at least four of the judges will want to remove all evidence that goes against the administrationā¦those four understand this is a key item on the list that will allow Republicans to retain power for another ten years. I donāt see Roberts going along with this, because he will be gutted by Ginsburg and the other three liberal judges, and appearances matter too much to himā¦they will be absolutely right when they call this out as a political decision to keep Republicans in power, and make it clear that the process was totally wrong (and illegal).
This has the hallmarks of four conservative judges trying to push their will onto Roberts, and itās a strategic error on their partā¦his desire to have his court not be seen as partisan hackery wonāt let him openly rule stuff like this is fine. It doesnāt change the fact that heāll still allow it when he can justify it to himself, but thereās really no justification in this case.
āDiscussion: SCOTUS Will Hear Arguments Over Evidence In Census Citizenship Disputeā
Will get and idea how far the boot will go up our arses,will it just be the toe of the boot or the whole foot and leg of the person wearing that boot.
Heās a scientist. In Trump land that automatically disqualifies him from knowing anything. He has knowledge and education and experience; we all know how unreliable that makes hm to voice opinions or reach conclusions.
Aaaarghhhhh
Boy I hope youāre right about that. It seems reasonable and fits with Roberts persona (gutting the VRA, but saving the ACA).
Iām surprised that the supremes are intervening in this case again. Didnāt they have a docket already set for this term?
Just this week, The WH responded to a set back in a different case by declaring their intention to take it straight to SCOTUS yet again. Isnāt SCOTUS getting tired of having their schedule dictated to them like this? How long until they just stop responding to the Trump adminās emergencies? Thereās plenty of fodder for destroying our fundamental rights in the standard stream of cases that file conventional appeals every year.
Roberts Court: Look, I know we told you the discrimination rests on the motive of the white guys, not the impact on the black guys ā that partās unimportant. What Iām not clear on is why you donāt just take the word of the white guys on what their motives are?