Of course, A Biden administration may order a re-canvassing -- to correct this. We shall see. [Backgrounder, here.] Do read it all. It is both wise and judicially modest -- unlike the grant of the stay:
. . .The Government now claims that this Court’s immediate intervention is necessary because, absent a stay, the Bureau will not be able to meet the December 31 statutory deadline for reporting census results to the President. This representation is contrary to the Government’s repeated assertions to the courts below that it could not meet the statutory deadline under any circumstances. Moreover, meeting the deadline at the expense of the accuracy of the census is not a cost worth paying, especially when the Government has failed to show why it could not bear the lesser cost of expending more resources to meet the deadline or continuing its prior efforts to seek an extension from Congress. This Court normally does not grant extraordinary relief on such a painfully disproportionate balance of harms. . . .
So it goes -- about twenty more days -- do vote. Onward.
नमस्ते
2 comments:
Question.
Why wouldn't requiring a devotion to a "right to life" for a Supreme Court nominee be considered a religious test in violation of the Constitution? A test required by the nominator (i.e. the President) and those who will decide on the nomination.
I know of no right that invests prior to birth, and the prenatal "right to life" is almost invariably based on religious dogma regarding the soul and having to be baptized to remove original sin.
Well-put, Anon.
Of course, ACB has thus far been lawyerly and careful in her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to NOT outright say she's taken (or passed!) Trump's religious oath/test.
In fact, in (likely false) testimony, given her prior writings and rulings, she takes great pain to say she will let the text of the laws decide cases.
But that is simply carefully coded-language, for "I am a vote to overrule Roe v. Wade". . . since we well know the family planning/human body autonomy rights at stake in Roe, DO NOT appear anywhere in the express "text" of the Constitution.
And she's a. . . textualist, like Gorsuch. OTOH -- Gorsuch did pen the LBGTQ+ ruling.
I still believe the Democrats in the Senate can stop her, by refusing to appear for the floor vote, and leave the Senate short of a quorum. But every Democratic Senator must lock arms and refuse to attend.
Bribery from the right becomes a real danger, as to one or two vulnerable Democratic Senate seats.
Great observations though, Anon.! Thanks!
Namaste. . . .
Post a Comment