The funny part is, the liberals that are getting angry at this literally stated the reason that they were doing it was to give themselves an edge to win the elections and a really grease ball way. They will admit it to your face, but only other hand they’ll say they should be allowed to do it lol.
Blarghnog on
They know they are likely going to get shut down by the Supreme Court on this.
That’s not the strategy. The strategy is to stack the Supreme Court at 13 and own everything when they get back in power, presumably next election cycle, and use this decision “against democracy” as the PR point to rally their base to the cause.
If they win this effort, it would be deeply unexpected, but they are in a win/win position from their perspective.
Almost everything that is happening right now comes down to expanding the court, so there are a lot of efforts happening from the DNC and funders right now.
deadzip10 on
For what it’s worth, my observation is that it is not unusual for appellate courts to issue short denials on motions for stays like this. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the norm. We only see longer rulings when there’s something complex going on that requires explanation and this is as far from requiring explanation as possible. By denying the stay, they’re (and this where the request is actually sort of absurd) actually preserving the status quo and preventing harm, the two objectives of preliminary injustice relief of the type requested by the appellants (the Dems). There’s not much to explain there so they don’t.
On the flip side, it’s probably not as indicative of their ultimate ruling as this portrays things for the same reasons I just explained. They may ultimately decide the redistricting effort here is valid but they aren’t going to allow the government to change the status quo while we figure that out.
3 Comments
The funny part is, the liberals that are getting angry at this literally stated the reason that they were doing it was to give themselves an edge to win the elections and a really grease ball way. They will admit it to your face, but only other hand they’ll say they should be allowed to do it lol.
They know they are likely going to get shut down by the Supreme Court on this.
That’s not the strategy. The strategy is to stack the Supreme Court at 13 and own everything when they get back in power, presumably next election cycle, and use this decision “against democracy” as the PR point to rally their base to the cause.
If they win this effort, it would be deeply unexpected, but they are in a win/win position from their perspective.
Almost everything that is happening right now comes down to expanding the court, so there are a lot of efforts happening from the DNC and funders right now.
For what it’s worth, my observation is that it is not unusual for appellate courts to issue short denials on motions for stays like this. In fact, I would go so far as to say it is the norm. We only see longer rulings when there’s something complex going on that requires explanation and this is as far from requiring explanation as possible. By denying the stay, they’re (and this where the request is actually sort of absurd) actually preserving the status quo and preventing harm, the two objectives of preliminary injustice relief of the type requested by the appellants (the Dems). There’s not much to explain there so they don’t.
On the flip side, it’s probably not as indicative of their ultimate ruling as this portrays things for the same reasons I just explained. They may ultimately decide the redistricting effort here is valid but they aren’t going to allow the government to change the status quo while we figure that out.