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.
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.
-
-
That’s why I said plausible and not correct. I’d also add formal. On some matters—I would say the bloody history of the black franchise, which goes to the heart of our democracy—the Court should err on the side of inclusion, not restriction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.