body { -ms-overflow-style: scrollbar; overflow-y: scroll; overscroll-behavior-y: none; } .errorContainer { background-color: #FFF; color: #0F1419; max-width: 600px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 10%; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; } .errorButton { margin: 3em 0; } .errorButton a { background: #1DA1F2; border-radius: 2.5em; color: white; padding: 1em 2em; text-decoration: none; } .errorButton a:hover, .errorButton a:focus { background: rgb(26, 145, 218); } .errorFooter { color: #657786; font-size: 80%; line-height: 1.5; padding: 1em 0; } .errorFooter a, .errorFooter a:visited { color: #657786; text-decoration: none; padding-right: 1em; } .errorFooter a:hover, .errorFooter a:active { text-decoration: underline; } #placeholder, #react-root { display: none !important; } body { background-color: #FFF !important; }

JavaScript is not available.

We’ve detected that JavaScript is disabled in this browser. Please enable JavaScript or switch to a supported browser to continue using twitter.com. You can see a list of supported browsers in our Help Center.

Terms of Service Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Imprint Ads info © 2023 Twitter, Inc.

Conversation

Chief Justice Roberts used the nicest possible language to say that the Trump Administration was lying.

And yet, viewing the evidence as a whole, we share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA. Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision the Secretary made and the rationale he provided.

read image description

ALT

2:47 PM · Jun 27, 2019

6

Bookmarks

Replying to

And:

Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision. In the Secretary’s telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the

read image description

ALT

materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency). And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what

read image description

ALT

3

33

63

And SCOTUS-speak for "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining":

Our review is deferential, but we are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” United States v. Stanchich, 550 F. 2d 1294, 1300 (CA2 1977) (Friendly, J.).

read image description

ALT

5

58

178

Replying to

It's not like he's never done that before, wait, he does it all the damn time! Roberts is a #NeverTrumper.

Replying to

I prefer the too nice language the reason "seems to have been contrived". Far too nice.

1

2

Replying to

and

Too bad Thomas and Gorsuch are so totally in the pocket of the Koch brothers

3

1

9

Replying to

and

twitter.com/theglipper/sta

This Tweet is unavailable.

2

16

@themadmadamadam

Replying to

We should not feel like we have been gifted something when top government officials actually recognize the Trump administration's lies. And yet.

1

6

Replying to

and

It's the Monty Python version. It's not lying. It's a mismatch! A mixup. Inadequately explained.

3

19

Replying to

and

And then voted for gerrymandering

1

4

Replying to

To Roberts, the obvious lies were a mere "distraction."

1

2