I see the Roberts Court is continuing its twerpish trend of issuing party-line votes in highly controversial cases as per curia 
The "Bush v. Gore" per curium, and you have to concede that your chambers wouldn't want your name on them either
Today it's Breyer that draws Unanswerable Dissent duty, responding to the Court's holding that the Court cannot rule about Trump's illegal plan to exclude undocumented aliens from the census because we can't be sure that it will work
"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."
What's worse, the Republican majority on the Court has done a 180 degree turn on the importance of completing the census in a timely manner, in both cases in aid of Trump's openly racist and illegal manipulation of the census
This case is plainly justiciable
On the merits, this is an easy case -- we don't even have to get to the (very real) constitutional issue because Trump administration's goal to exclude undocumented aliens from the census violates the clear language of the relevant statute
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
The Trump administration's "interpretation" of the statute is also completely inconsistent with its core purpose
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
*per curiam on the second tweet, my kingdom for an edit function
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
