The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit that would have blocked Trump's census-apportionment memo for lack of standing, a principle Trump vilified before that boosts him now.
Justice Breyer, with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting.
The court's right flank ignored "unusually straightforward" threatened injury that shows standing.
None of the members of the majority signed their per curium ruling.
To be clear, Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh tore Trump's interpretation of the apportionment clause to shreds during oral arguments.
They just kicked the can down the road in finding that.
That delay, @dale_e_ho told me then, could have real consequences.
Read my recap of oral arguments from late last month for background of what's at stake and how the high court's ruling can shape political power in the United States for a decade, long after Trump leaves office on Jan. 20. lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/…
* per curiam
Tl;dr:
There is little doubt that the states and civil rights groups would have beat Trump on the merits had the majority reached them.
There is no doubt that Trump lost many of his anti-democratic post-election cases on the merits, others on standing, which boosted him here.
The same sentence applies to both and has the benefit of not lying to users that a “dispute” exists or that “sources” of misinformation have any value.
Think about how many words Twitter has to expend simply to demonstrate a lack of vertebrae.
Three words are all you need.
If it insists on being wordy, try this likewise accurate alternative by YouTube, which surprisingly has shown Twitter up in how to correctly label misinformation.
The second federal court hearing in Georgia in a single day where Republicans are challenging absentee voting rules in the runoffs should begin shortly.
Another federal judge DISMISSED a similar lawsuit this morning.
A federal court hearing in the case against Steve Bannon and his associates charged with conspiring to defraud donors of We Build the Wall will begin shortly.
Most of the myths and conspiracy theories about a free press in the United States would be demolished by anyone spending any significant amount of time in a press room.
Two reporters whose personal politics might be light years apart from each other can cover the same politically charged event and churn out extremely similar stories.
Because we covered the same happening.
Most beat reporters covering social institutions have integrity, and even if they didn't, the professional costs of burying news that damaged their perceived side or rewards to establish a record of credibility and scoops would be enough to set them straight.