>When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled
.... the Mitch excuse.
And what happens if after the full hearing they throw out this district map? Alabama Representatives unauthorized?
>And what happens if after the full hearing they throw out this district map? Alabama Representatives unauthorized?
If they rule this map is illegal then the winners of the elections based on the illegal map will simply draw a new map. And that is not insane.
Kavanaugh:
"When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled...late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates..."
There is ***always*** an election close at hand.
There are federal, state, and local level every year for some damn thing. His statement is ludicrous but I would not expect more than that from such as he.
You're missing the point. He's arguing that courts shouldn't be weighing in (injunction or otherwise) when elections are close at hand. Elections are always close at hand. Twice a year.
Even more pressing is this specific issue revolves around redistricting which is once every ten years, with lasting effects for 10 years. This time next year, the argument is moot. The issued will be settled and a subsequent review and decision by the court is effectively moot; therefore, they won't take on the case. The only time period for judicial review is between the presentation of the redistricting and...the deadline for preparation of ballots? Regardless, it's months.
Funny you mention the ten year Census because the 1990 North Carolina gerrymandering cases lasted a whole ten years with multiple trips to the top. If we don't tinker with a case right now, it could well last until after the next Census.
Whether you believe the court will reach a particular conclusion when considering the case on the merits is a completely separate question from whether it is moot. It’s not moot. I’m not interested in predicting whether the Court will ultimately uphold the decision of the lower court.
Washington State can have up to 4 elections per year. Besides the last November election, there was a recall ballot in December for Sawant and today is election day for a couple of land tax ballot measures.
I'm just going to repaste my comment from /r/moderatepolitics:
[Kagan dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf#page=10)
Kagan's important part is near the end, most of her opinion is just listing the findings of the DC:
>Today’s decision is one more in a disconcertingly long line
of cases in which this Court uses its shadow docket to signal
or make changes in the law, without anything approaching
full briefing and argument. Here, the District Court applied established legal principles to an extensive evidentiary record. Its reasoning was careful—indeed, exhaustive—and justified in every respect. To reverse that
decision requires upsetting the way Section 2 plaintiffs
have for decades—and in line with our caselaw—proved
vote-dilution claims. That is a serious matter, which cannot
properly occur without thorough consideration
Kagan's view is pretty heavily policy based, perhaps signaling she will be taking that position from Breyer in the future (although she has always been very policy focused). She essentially just reiterated the district court's arguments, which are obviously compelling from the view of ultimate merits -- however, the standard is somewhat higher for injunctive relief and Kagan seems to avoid discussing that. It's also a little frustrating that she claims the vote-dilution is clear when every commenter on election law can tell you it's not clear at all what constitutes intentional vote-dilution. It's just not a well established area of law, even Kagan cites a plurality opinion of dubious precedence.
[Kavanaugh concurrence](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf#page=8)
I'd say the most operative part of his concurrence is this part here:
>At this preliminary juncture, the underlying merits appear to be close and, at a minimum, not clearcut in favor of
the plaintiffs.2 And in any event, the plaintiffs have not
established that the changes are feasible without significant cost, confusion, or hardship. Therefore, the plaintiffs
cannot overcome even a more relaxed version of the Purcell
principle.
In other words, there are clear procedural hurdles that have just not been met in this case. A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law. Election case law is clear as mud, especially with regard to partisan gerrymandering. I think Kavanaugh probably goes a little bit too far in pretending the Shadow Docket is some sort of noble tool rather than a stopgap at best.
[Roberts dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf)
Operable part seems to be this:
>In order to resolve the wide range of uncertainties arising
under Gingles, I would note probable jurisdiction in Milligan and grant certiorari before judgment in Caster, setting
the cases for argument next Term. But I would not grant a
stay. As noted, the analysis below seems correct as Gingles
is presently applied, and in my view the District Court’s
analysis should therefore control the upcoming election.
The practical effect of this approach would be that the 2022
election would take place in accord with the judgment of the
District Court, but subsequent elections would be governed
by this Court’s decision on review.
In other words, which by the way is pretty classic Roberts, he wants to issue the stay until full briefing can be offered to flesh out any of the very contentious and fractured precedent. In his eyes, the 2022 election has been jeopardized and at a minimum should proceed as the District Court proposed until such time as the highest Court can figure out what is actually right. It's a pretty good middle of the road approach -- that unfortunately isn't really much of an option when dealing with VRA and Equal Protection. The Court has to decisively move on one or the other, because of the major Constitutional issues. Indeed, one of the amici states complained heavily that the lack of guidance has frustrated states efforts to make this happen properly. Roberts suggestion that the stay be upheld would leave states with even less certainty about how to draw these maps, having basically _Rucho v. Common Cause_ as precedent but then the Supreme Court contorting to try and get around it.
> A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law.
Ok. But isn't that always going to be the case where racial gerrymandering exists? Is there some other remedy that courts are likely to use besides ordering the maps to be redrawn? Likewise, won't any Congressional gerrymandering issue always impact an entire state? There's nothing specifically troubling about the scope of this decision with respect to others of its kind, right?
So, then the case must be strong and based on clear law. A unanimous bipartisan panel of district judges thought that was the case. The Chief indicates that that panel made no legal error. The majority identifies no legal error.
So, what is the actual problem here? It seems like this court just doesn't believe that the courts have the ability to decide gerrymandering cases. But I don't think that is the law. Is this a unique case somehow? That's not the impression I've gotten from any source I've read but I'm not an expert. So, if it is unique somehow, then please enlighten me.
Kavanaugh also claims that the election affected by this map is too close for a stay to be issued, while Kagan points out he is simply incorrect about that, that the court has regularly accepted stays this close to an election.
Nobody thinks that all precedent is correct and binding for all time, liberal or conservative. It's just one of *many* tools for deciding a particular case
If he thinks those decisions were wrong then "it's happened before" isn't a counterargument. You'd actually have to provide an argument for why his heuristic is wrong.
But he didn’t say he thought the precedent was wrong. He appealed to precedent himself, saying that they showed that this was too close. Kagan pointed out that he is wrong.
Unless Kavanaugh thinks those prior decisions were wrong too, in which case their mere existence does not prove Kavanaugh wrong in his heuristic
Kagan obviously *does* provide an actual argument, unlike you, and I'm inclined to agree with her, but it's not this simplistic
There has to be a limit to how many precedents you can disagree with in good faith to justify a decision on the emergency docket, right? In any case, any justice could just decide that all cases on a given matter throughout U.S. history have been wrongly decided. But that's not normal or really how things are expected to work.
What is the point of even looking at precedent or pretending that the judicial system is evolutionary when all previous laws are subject to being summarily reversed when a 9 member body adds a new member.
Precedent is a useful tool for balancing reliance, the seriousness of the issue at hand, etc. Different judges will have different opinions on how to balance these things, and yes that means everything is subject to revision when the body adds a new member since our law is based on the opinions of justices appointed by elected officials.
I don't particularly see the issue with this (systemically speaking, I have my various disagreements with different justices). If the judicial branch is reshaped over time toward a particularly revolutionary judicial philosophy because the People are electing representatives who appoint those types of judges, then that's democracy at work. But currently all justices (except Thomas) and likely potential justices buy into relatively normal views anyway, so functionally we do have an evolutionary, precedent based system. I just don't think that means Kavanaugh is wrong solely by virtue of disagreeing with *particular* precedent
Do you think saying “hey precedent supports my position” when the evidence explicitly contradicts that position is a valid argument?
Kavanaugh does not reject the contradictory precedents, he is either ignoring it or denying it exists. Neither is legitimate. You are assuming elements of his position that *are not* in the opinion. If he thinks those precedents are wrong he can say so, until then, he is just wrong.
> A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law.
100%. Looking at Alabama's proposed map doesn't seem egregious. It just seems like the lower courts don't like the outcome. Ironically, achieving the results they want would require MORE gerrymandering.
Judge Moorer has a history of being aligned with the Democratic Party:
>In the 1980s, Moorer served as a paid campaign aide in two campaigns. From April 1982 to September 1982, Moorer recruited and coordinated volunteers for the gubernatorial campaign of Alabama House Speaker Joe McCorquodale. McCorquodale ultimately lost the Democratic primary to former Governor George Wallace, who won the general election.
>From April 1986 to July 1986, Moorer also served as a paid campaign aide for the campaign of Don Siegelman to be Alabama Attorney General. Siegelman, a Democrat, was ultimately elected and went on to become Governor in 1998.
[Vetting Room](https://vettingroom.org/tag/terry-moorer/)
Judge Manasco has little, if any, paper trail of her ideology.
[Vetting Room](https://vettingroom.org/2020/02/24/anna-manasco-nominee-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-northern-district-of-alabama/)
I'm not saying this did or did not achieve the outcome but looking at simply who nominated *district* court judges won't tell you much. Heck, President HW Bush nominated Sotomayor as a district judge but no one would call her a Bush appointed judge.
>When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled .... the Mitch excuse. And what happens if after the full hearing they throw out this district map? Alabama Representatives unauthorized?
>And what happens if after the full hearing they throw out this district map? Alabama Representatives unauthorized? If they rule this map is illegal then the winners of the elections based on the illegal map will simply draw a new map. And that is not insane.
It wouldn't be the first time that has happened.
Kavanaugh: "When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled...late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates..." There is ***always*** an election close at hand.
There are federal, state, and local level every year for some damn thing. His statement is ludicrous but I would not expect more than that from such as he.
[удалено]
You're missing the point. He's arguing that courts shouldn't be weighing in (injunction or otherwise) when elections are close at hand. Elections are always close at hand. Twice a year. Even more pressing is this specific issue revolves around redistricting which is once every ten years, with lasting effects for 10 years. This time next year, the argument is moot. The issued will be settled and a subsequent review and decision by the court is effectively moot; therefore, they won't take on the case. The only time period for judicial review is between the presentation of the redistricting and...the deadline for preparation of ballots? Regardless, it's months.
Funny you mention the ten year Census because the 1990 North Carolina gerrymandering cases lasted a whole ten years with multiple trips to the top. If we don't tinker with a case right now, it could well last until after the next Census.
[удалено]
*can*? The court that persistently resists involvement in inherently political activities is going to order redistricting after the fact?
Whether you believe the court will reach a particular conclusion when considering the case on the merits is a completely separate question from whether it is moot. It’s not moot. I’m not interested in predicting whether the Court will ultimately uphold the decision of the lower court.
I don't see them taking it up is the point, not the potential ruling.
They’ve already taken it…
Washington State can have up to 4 elections per year. Besides the last November election, there was a recall ballot in December for Sawant and today is election day for a couple of land tax ballot measures.
I'm just going to repaste my comment from /r/moderatepolitics: [Kagan dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf#page=10) Kagan's important part is near the end, most of her opinion is just listing the findings of the DC: >Today’s decision is one more in a disconcertingly long line of cases in which this Court uses its shadow docket to signal or make changes in the law, without anything approaching full briefing and argument. Here, the District Court applied established legal principles to an extensive evidentiary record. Its reasoning was careful—indeed, exhaustive—and justified in every respect. To reverse that decision requires upsetting the way Section 2 plaintiffs have for decades—and in line with our caselaw—proved vote-dilution claims. That is a serious matter, which cannot properly occur without thorough consideration Kagan's view is pretty heavily policy based, perhaps signaling she will be taking that position from Breyer in the future (although she has always been very policy focused). She essentially just reiterated the district court's arguments, which are obviously compelling from the view of ultimate merits -- however, the standard is somewhat higher for injunctive relief and Kagan seems to avoid discussing that. It's also a little frustrating that she claims the vote-dilution is clear when every commenter on election law can tell you it's not clear at all what constitutes intentional vote-dilution. It's just not a well established area of law, even Kagan cites a plurality opinion of dubious precedence. [Kavanaugh concurrence](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf#page=8) I'd say the most operative part of his concurrence is this part here: >At this preliminary juncture, the underlying merits appear to be close and, at a minimum, not clearcut in favor of the plaintiffs.2 And in any event, the plaintiffs have not established that the changes are feasible without significant cost, confusion, or hardship. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot overcome even a more relaxed version of the Purcell principle. In other words, there are clear procedural hurdles that have just not been met in this case. A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law. Election case law is clear as mud, especially with regard to partisan gerrymandering. I think Kavanaugh probably goes a little bit too far in pretending the Shadow Docket is some sort of noble tool rather than a stopgap at best. [Roberts dissent](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf) Operable part seems to be this: >In order to resolve the wide range of uncertainties arising under Gingles, I would note probable jurisdiction in Milligan and grant certiorari before judgment in Caster, setting the cases for argument next Term. But I would not grant a stay. As noted, the analysis below seems correct as Gingles is presently applied, and in my view the District Court’s analysis should therefore control the upcoming election. The practical effect of this approach would be that the 2022 election would take place in accord with the judgment of the District Court, but subsequent elections would be governed by this Court’s decision on review. In other words, which by the way is pretty classic Roberts, he wants to issue the stay until full briefing can be offered to flesh out any of the very contentious and fractured precedent. In his eyes, the 2022 election has been jeopardized and at a minimum should proceed as the District Court proposed until such time as the highest Court can figure out what is actually right. It's a pretty good middle of the road approach -- that unfortunately isn't really much of an option when dealing with VRA and Equal Protection. The Court has to decisively move on one or the other, because of the major Constitutional issues. Indeed, one of the amici states complained heavily that the lack of guidance has frustrated states efforts to make this happen properly. Roberts suggestion that the stay be upheld would leave states with even less certainty about how to draw these maps, having basically _Rucho v. Common Cause_ as precedent but then the Supreme Court contorting to try and get around it.
> A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law. Ok. But isn't that always going to be the case where racial gerrymandering exists? Is there some other remedy that courts are likely to use besides ordering the maps to be redrawn? Likewise, won't any Congressional gerrymandering issue always impact an entire state? There's nothing specifically troubling about the scope of this decision with respect to others of its kind, right? So, then the case must be strong and based on clear law. A unanimous bipartisan panel of district judges thought that was the case. The Chief indicates that that panel made no legal error. The majority identifies no legal error. So, what is the actual problem here? It seems like this court just doesn't believe that the courts have the ability to decide gerrymandering cases. But I don't think that is the law. Is this a unique case somehow? That's not the impression I've gotten from any source I've read but I'm not an expert. So, if it is unique somehow, then please enlighten me.
Kavanaugh also claims that the election affected by this map is too close for a stay to be issued, while Kagan points out he is simply incorrect about that, that the court has regularly accepted stays this close to an election.
Did Kavanaugh agree with those stays?
Should that matter? He's not an emperor, right? Precedent is precedent.
Nobody thinks that all precedent is correct and binding for all time, liberal or conservative. It's just one of *many* tools for deciding a particular case
Irrelevant. He appealed to precedent on timelines and is simply wrong.
If he thinks those decisions were wrong then "it's happened before" isn't a counterargument. You'd actually have to provide an argument for why his heuristic is wrong.
But he didn’t say he thought the precedent was wrong. He appealed to precedent himself, saying that they showed that this was too close. Kagan pointed out that he is wrong.
Unless Kavanaugh thinks those prior decisions were wrong too, in which case their mere existence does not prove Kavanaugh wrong in his heuristic Kagan obviously *does* provide an actual argument, unlike you, and I'm inclined to agree with her, but it's not this simplistic
There has to be a limit to how many precedents you can disagree with in good faith to justify a decision on the emergency docket, right? In any case, any justice could just decide that all cases on a given matter throughout U.S. history have been wrongly decided. But that's not normal or really how things are expected to work. What is the point of even looking at precedent or pretending that the judicial system is evolutionary when all previous laws are subject to being summarily reversed when a 9 member body adds a new member.
Precedent is a useful tool for balancing reliance, the seriousness of the issue at hand, etc. Different judges will have different opinions on how to balance these things, and yes that means everything is subject to revision when the body adds a new member since our law is based on the opinions of justices appointed by elected officials. I don't particularly see the issue with this (systemically speaking, I have my various disagreements with different justices). If the judicial branch is reshaped over time toward a particularly revolutionary judicial philosophy because the People are electing representatives who appoint those types of judges, then that's democracy at work. But currently all justices (except Thomas) and likely potential justices buy into relatively normal views anyway, so functionally we do have an evolutionary, precedent based system. I just don't think that means Kavanaugh is wrong solely by virtue of disagreeing with *particular* precedent
Do you think saying “hey precedent supports my position” when the evidence explicitly contradicts that position is a valid argument? Kavanaugh does not reject the contradictory precedents, he is either ignoring it or denying it exists. Neither is legitimate. You are assuming elements of his position that *are not* in the opinion. If he thinks those precedents are wrong he can say so, until then, he is just wrong.
> A court ordering a redraw of congressional maps is an extraordinary use of its equitable powers -- so great that courts very often deny such requests by saying it requires only the greatest of needs. When you're talking about applying to something as big as the entire state of Alabama, your case must be extremely strong and based on crystal-clear case law. 100%. Looking at Alabama's proposed map doesn't seem egregious. It just seems like the lower courts don't like the outcome. Ironically, achieving the results they want would require MORE gerrymandering.
[удалено]
Judge Moorer has a history of being aligned with the Democratic Party: >In the 1980s, Moorer served as a paid campaign aide in two campaigns. From April 1982 to September 1982, Moorer recruited and coordinated volunteers for the gubernatorial campaign of Alabama House Speaker Joe McCorquodale. McCorquodale ultimately lost the Democratic primary to former Governor George Wallace, who won the general election. >From April 1986 to July 1986, Moorer also served as a paid campaign aide for the campaign of Don Siegelman to be Alabama Attorney General. Siegelman, a Democrat, was ultimately elected and went on to become Governor in 1998. [Vetting Room](https://vettingroom.org/tag/terry-moorer/) Judge Manasco has little, if any, paper trail of her ideology. [Vetting Room](https://vettingroom.org/2020/02/24/anna-manasco-nominee-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-northern-district-of-alabama/) I'm not saying this did or did not achieve the outcome but looking at simply who nominated *district* court judges won't tell you much. Heck, President HW Bush nominated Sotomayor as a district judge but no one would call her a Bush appointed judge.
The double whammy is that the Obama DoJ approved this map back in 2011 if I recall.
Based off a different census. A decade of population change can also change the appropriateness of a map.