Courts aren't supposed to be counter-majoritarian, they're supposed to be super-majoritarian. They tell temporary majorities that some larger, longer-lasting majority's rule still stands in force.
Now, I think there's a very fair debate over whether Shelby County answered that question correctly. (There's no real debate that if you apply the Court's standard, Roberts was right: Congress did absolutely nothing at all to determine if it still had the right list of states.)
-
-
So you think it’s a plausible decision, but not necessarily a correct decision? Clearly Roberts speculations about the significance of the historical changes since the originally passed seem to be glib. Ginsburg had the better of that claim.
-
His point was that Congress didn't even check. He didn't have to be right, he just had to carry the burden of showing that a fresh look had any possibility of yielding a different list, or no list.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.