Yeah, I know. And I get the feeling they were internally strong-armed into unanimity, given the strong objections the liberal justices included in their concurring opinion, as though anything less than unanimity would leave it open to debate. But all they did was punt it back to the legislature.
Today is a dark day in American jurisprudence, IMO.
EDITED TO ADD: Turns out, according to The Guardian today, the decision was formally issued by the court as “per curiam” which is not default for a unanimous SCOTUS decision, but must be specifically designated by the court. So it wasn’t just my feeling, the court really is driving home the point of “unanimity” beyond the norm.
Anyone here remember this?
The Guardian: Kavanaugh will ‘step up’ to keep Trump on ballots, ex-president’s lawyer says
Looks like Boofin’ Brett kept his word after all.
It was unanimous. Against constitutional precedent from the people who wrote the Amendment, btw.
So much for Originalism.
Yeah, I know. And I get the feeling they were internally strong-armed into unanimity, given the strong objections the liberal justices included in their concurring opinion, as though anything less than unanimity would leave it open to debate. But all they did was punt it back to the legislature.
Today is a dark day in American jurisprudence, IMO.
EDITED TO ADD: Turns out, according to The Guardian today, the decision was formally issued by the court as “per curiam” which is not default for a unanimous SCOTUS decision, but must be specifically designated by the court. So it wasn’t just my feeling, the court really is driving home the point of “unanimity” beyond the norm.
Keg stands for everyone!