Do at least five SCOTUS justices believe rotten boroughs should be legal?

[I’m not Stu]

https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1191363978003435520 Do at least five justices believe that rotten boroughs should be legal? I don’t mean gerrymandering, I mean grossly malapportioned rotten boroughs.

[brucejoel99]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

[I’m not Stu]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

[brucejoel99]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

[I’m not Stu]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

Are Salon and Vox reliable? Have you read the book American Fascism? I find Jeffrey Toobin too optimistic for my taste.

[Hammy]

So we're just going to ignore that the tweet was from 2019 and seemed to hinge at least in part on Trump winning reelection?

[I’m not Stu]

So we're just going to ignore that the tweet was from 2019 and seemed to hinge at least in part on Trump winning reelection?

Not necessarily. It was from 2019, but I think the context is what happens if it becomes at least 6-3. That meant it would definitely become at least 6-3 if Trump gets another term. It became 6-3 despite Trump’s loss.

[Donerail]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

Stern is good tbf, one of the better reporters covering the Court. I don't think Reynolds v. Sims is going anywhere, but fair to flag that a conservative majority will continue to grind down the VRA into nothing — even if he (and OP, but that goes without saying) is being a bit hyperbolic here.

[Skill and Chance]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

Stern is good tbf, one of the better reporters covering the Court. I don't think Reynolds v. Sims is going anywhere, but fair to flag that a conservative majority will continue to grind down the VRA into nothing — even if he (and OP, but that goes without saying) is being a bit hyperbolic here.

This.  The "ancient" Warren Court and New Deal era stuff is all safe, however just about every 5/4 Anthony Kennedy+liberals decision not having to do with LGBTQ rights is in danger now.

[politicallefty]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

Stern is good tbf, one of the better reporters covering the Court. I don't think Reynolds v. Sims is going anywhere, but fair to flag that a conservative majority will continue to grind down the VRA into nothing — even if he (and OP, but that goes without saying) is being a bit hyperbolic here.

This.  The "ancient" Warren Court and New Deal era stuff is all safe, however just about every 5/4 Anthony Kennedy+liberals decision not having to do with LGBTQ rights is in danger now.

This is basically how I feel as well. However, I can't fault people for being extremely nervous about the potential consequences of Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders being overturned. Imagine extreme partisan gerrymandering without the constraints of the size of districts. It's probably one of the most anti-democratic concepts imaginable.

I don't really see death penalty jurisprudence changing much either. Justice Kennedy basically narrowed the scope to adults that have committed murder or treason. He was certainly not an anti-death penalty crusader though.

It remains to be seen as to how fast or how far this new conservative majority will move. Before Justice Ginsburg's passing, I would've said carefully and deliberately. Roberts has generally preferred an incremental approach to win the long game rather than swift, overarching blockbuster decisions (yes, there are some exceptions). But he is technically now to the left of the median on the Court. I think going forward, it will largely be based on the issue. Conservatives are bound to have big wins on First Amendment religious cases. I think the Court probably wants to avoid overturning Roe v. Wade right away (preferring an incremental approach that does it in all but name), but there are some states that are going to push this issue. I also expect race-based affirmative action to be gutted, but that's one issue where I think the conservatives on the Court are right.

[Skill and Chance]

No. The whole purpose of the Framers' mandate of a census every 10 years was to literally depart from the British practice of "rotten boroughs" that had been created by the Industrial Revolution's huge population migrations. A Court majority is about as likely to support bringing "rotten boroughs" back as a Mod is to tell you that they've finally had it up to here with your nonsensical spam.

I posted a legal expert’s tweet. I didn’t make this up out of thin air. I know there are at least three who believe rotten boroughs should be legal (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch).

Your "legal expert" is a staff writer at Slate, so not exactly an unbiased party. Unlike you, I choose to live here in the real world, & not in a baselessly apocalyptic nightmare that you, Slate, & I think Jeffrey Toobin seem to all collectively share.

Stern is good tbf, one of the better reporters covering the Court. I don't think Reynolds v. Sims is going anywhere, but fair to flag that a conservative majority will continue to grind down the VRA into nothing — even if he (and OP, but that goes without saying) is being a bit hyperbolic here.

This.  The "ancient" Warren Court and New Deal era stuff is all safe, however just about every 5/4 Anthony Kennedy+liberals decision not having to do with LGBTQ rights is in danger now.

This is basically how I feel as well. However, I can't fault people for being extremely nervous about the potential consequences of Reynolds v. Sims and Wesberry v. Sanders being overturned. Imagine extreme partisan gerrymandering without the constraints of the size of districts. It's probably one of the most anti-democratic concepts imaginable.

I don't really see death penalty jurisprudence changing much either. Justice Kennedy basically narrowed the scope to adults that have committed murder or treason. He was certainly not an anti-death penalty crusader though.

It remains to be seen as to how fast or how far this new conservative majority will move. Before Justice Ginsburg's passing, I would've said carefully and deliberately. Roberts has generally preferred an incremental approach to win the long game rather than swift, overarching blockbuster decisions (yes, there are some exceptions). But he is technically now to the left of the median on the Court. I think going forward, it will largely be based on the issue. Conservatives are bound to have big wins on First Amendment religious cases. I think the Court probably wants to avoid overturning Roe v. Wade right away (preferring an incremental approach that does it in all but name), but there are some states that are going to push this issue. I also expect race-based affirmative action to be gutted, but that's one issue where I think the conservatives on the Court are right.

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected. 

[I’m not Stu]

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected.  

Famous last words. It looks like there might be quite a few partisan 5-4 decisions with Roberts dissenting outside of religious liberty cases.

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1386677866398629890

[brucejoel99]

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected.  

Famous last words. It looks like there might be quite a few partisan 5-4 decisions with Roberts dissenting outside of religious liberty cases.

Says the user for whom seemingly every single significant prediction which you've ever made concerning Court decisions has ended up wrong in one way or another. The only person in our vicinity who's ever consistently had "egg on their face" concerning Court decisions is you. Shut up & let people who actually know what they're talking about talk, know-nothing.

[I’m not Stu]

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected.  

Famous last words. It looks like there might be quite a few partisan 5-4 decisions with Roberts dissenting outside of religious liberty cases.

Says the user for whom seemingly every single significant prediction which you've ever made concerning Court decisions has ended up wrong in one way or another. The only person in our vicinity who's ever consistently had "egg on their face" concerning Court decisions is you. Shut up & let people who actually know what they're talking about talk, know-nothing.

You don't think Vox is a reliable source?

[Skill and Chance]

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected.  

Famous last words. It looks like there might be quite a few partisan 5-4 decisions with Roberts dissenting outside of religious liberty cases.

Says the user for whom seemingly every single significant prediction which you've ever made concerning Court decisions has ended up wrong in one way or another. The only person in our vicinity who's ever consistently had "egg on their face" concerning Court decisions is you. Shut up & let people who actually know what they're talking about talk, know-nothing.

You don't think Vox is a reliable source?

No, not reliable after 2016 and just off the wall ridiculous since 2019 or so.

[I’m not Stu]

True, but Roberts has really been leaning on Kavanaugh to adopt the gradualist approach.  It seems to be working so far and may also be influencing Barrett to rule in a more reserved way than expected.  

Famous last words. It looks like there might be quite a few partisan 5-4 decisions with Roberts dissenting outside of religious liberty cases.

Says the user for whom seemingly every single significant prediction which you've ever made concerning Court decisions has ended up wrong in one way or another. The only person in our vicinity who's ever consistently had "egg on their face" concerning Court decisions is you. Shut up & let people who actually know what they're talking about talk, know-nothing.

You don't think Vox is a reliable source?

No, not reliable after 2016 and just off the wall ridiculous since 2019 or so.

How did Vox become "ridiculous"?