Trump Court hands its patron another parting gift
By 
And in the most cowardly, passive-aggressive way possible:
The “Bush v. Gore” per curium, and you have to concede that your chambers wouldn’t want your name on them either— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 18, 2020
“Where, as here, the Government acknowledges it is working to achieve an allegedly illegal goal, this Court should not decline to resolve the case simply because the Government speculates that it might not fully succeed.” pic.twitter.com/H6Q3bozNxy— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 18, 2020
This case is plainly justiciable pic.twitter.com/Z1jGplMtqE— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 18, 2020
As Breyer explains, everything judges use to engage in statutory interpretation — the text, historical practice, legislative history — point in the same direction: that the Trump administration’s unprecedented attempt to exclude undocumented aliens is illegal pic.twitter.com/cRvG4zOOmo— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 18, 2020
This is a partisan Court once again refusing to check flagrant illegality from a president it views as an ideological ally, and should serve as a reminder that “was it willing to literally steal an election?” is not the baseline by which it should be judged— Scott Lemieux (@LemieuxLGM) December 18, 2020
*per curiam on the second tweet, my kingdom for an edit function
The census cases are an excellent illustration of the critical fact that Roberts’s differences from the other neoconfederates on the Court are strategic, not substantive.