Maybe. But the *only* basis of ruling for Texas was mootness--and he's been pretty voting rights plaintiff-friendly in prior cases, as the rest of his opinion shows. I doubt he was being strategic; my guess is he just said "concurring" cause he was agreeing with outcome.
Gotta think he did this deliberately to scuttle the chances of putting Texas back under federal voting supervisionhttps://twitter.com/joshuaadouglas/status/990081447317958656 …
-
-
-
Also, I don't recall a practice on 5th of carefully designating style of opinion. Some say "concurring specially" and others just "concurring" but I don't think it's as fine-tuned as at
#SCOTUS, and is really judge-specific.
End of conversation
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.