,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
CJ Roberts' "sociological gobbledygook" line in the Gill argument is getting well-deserved coverage. But there's a bigger story here. 1/
Larger worry: neither Roberts nor J Gorsuch seems to understand the social-science research they denigrated during the hearing. 2/
Start with Roberts conflating asymmetry with lack of proportional representation 3/ 
Smith explains they are quite different. Robert seems to think the words are basically synonyms so the concepts must be equivalent. 4/
Had he read the important amicus brief by Gaddie & Grofman, he would have understood the distinction 5/
Instead he dismisses it all as gobbledygook. Like a student who didn't do his homework and then insists he knows what he's talking about. 6/
And then we have J Gorsuch, who confuses the *tests* for asymmetry with asymmetry itself. 7/
Following that up with his well-rehearsed line comparing the tests to the ingredients of a steak rub. 8/
That is both silly & inapposite as an analogy. 9/
The point is several metrics arrive at same conclusion: WI's gerrymander is excessive. Not matter of a particular melenge of metrics. 10/
As Paul Smith explains here. 11/11
My coverage of the oral argument:
P.S. This is a hard case. Policing g'mandering is fraught. But it's disappointing some justices weren't prepared to parse ideas on offer.
