SCOTUS oks Texas gerrymander. Bets on how they decide on California's?

[Bobstandard]

Texas’ gerrymander was proposed and approved by their heavily Republican legislature. No input from the citizens whose districts would be altered. The California redistricting was a proposition approved overwhelmingly by a vote of California’s citizens.

I’m betting the California Republican’s Hail Mary or the Trump DOJ’s attempts to have courts throw out the results of the vote will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS will then put a stay on implementation of the redistricting until the full court can rule on the issues—which they won’t do until after the midterms.

I think it’s a pretty safe bet. The Roberts court is clearly in the bag for Trump and the defenestration of the Constitution. They’ll do anything to prop him up.

[MagickMuffin]

1. Major difference, Texans didn't have a say at the ballot box

Californias voted for their redistricting / gerrymandering.

Greg Abbott didn’t provide us with the same curtesy. Republicans decided on all our decisions. Texans aren’t allowed to vote for our representatives. Abbott and Tim O’Hare of Tarrant County make the calls on how Texans votes.

[Polybius]

3. Absolutely correct, although the SC doesn't take "voters voted for it" into account n/t

[Ms. Toad]

2. They did NOT ok Texas gerrymander.

They determined injunctive (preliminary/interim) relief was not appropriate.

Injunctive relief was always intended to be a rare, interim, remedy - designed solely to prevent irreparable harm until the issue can be fully heard. Lower courts are granting them right and left - so it is not surprising that many are being reversed.

Injunctions are NOT decisions on the merits.

They may well ultimately side with Texas once the case works its way through the courts - but that is not what this decision is about.

[Bobstandard]

4. It's about giving Trump what he wants

That the point, never mind the niceties.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Legal accuracy is not a nicety.

[Bobstandard]

6. Apparent it is

Witness the Supreme Court’s inexplicable decisions recently.

[Ms. Toad]

7. The decisions are not inexplicable as to the injunctive relief.

It is intended to be as rare thing, issued only when throwing money at problem after the fact can't solve the problem. Lower courts have been issuing injunctive relief at a rate we've never seen before. It is absolutely not surprising that many of these are being reversed by the higher courts.

But what I was referring to was calling a decision reversing an injunction a decision on the merits. They are two very different things, and the distinction between them is not just a legal nicety.