wb.
LightNews LightNews
banner
willbdoubtful.bsky.social
wb.
@willbdoubtful.bsky.social
480 followers 280 following 470 posts
he's just will
Posts Replies Media Videos
willbdoubtful.bsky.social
The confounding factor here being that this guy also appears to be on the kind of uppers they were dosing runners with for the 1904 Olympic marathon
December 5, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Reposted by wb.
jamellebouie.net
anyway this isn’t a legally difficult question it is a politically difficult question for the conservative majority and the only thing we’re waiting to see is if they will ignore political pressure and follow the clear text of the constitution or bend to the president’s demands.
December 5, 2025 at 7:05 PM
Reposted by wb.
connorlynch.bsky.social
Sounds like they have legalized racial gerrymandering so long as non-whites won’t vote for republicans.
December 4, 2025 at 11:57 PM
Reposted by wb.
mjsdc.bsky.social
As Kagan notes, SCOTUS has given states a cheat code to enact illegally racist voting laws: just pass them close enough to an election that the Purcell principle will bar judicial review!

Under this logic, courts couldn’t block actual Jim Crow laws within a year of an election. It can’t be right.
And even supposing it is now the ninth or tenth hour, whose choice was that? It was of course the Texas legisla- ture that decided to change its map six months before a March primary. The plaintiffs could not have moved any faster: They requested an injunction before the new law was even signed. And to try to speed the litigation, they de- clined discovery. (That decision, by the way, probably ac- counted for their failure to submit an alternative map, which to be probative must be based on the State’s particu- lar districting criteria. See supra, at 13 n.) The District Court moved expeditiously too, issuing its 160-page opinion (on November 18) just a month after post-hearing briefing concluded. No one dilly-dallied in this case. The District Court ruled as “late” as it did because the legislature en- acted a new map less than three months before. If Purcell prevents such a ruling, it gives every State the opportunity to hold an unlawful election. The District Court, once again aptly, made the point: Were judicial re- view so broadly foreclosed, then to implement even a “bla- tantly unconstitutional map,” the “Legislature would need only to pass” it on a schedule like this one. App. 154–155. That cannot be the law—except of course that today it is. According to the majority, Texas had a free pass to redis- trict in August 2025 for the 2026 House elections. See ante, at 2. All that the plaintiffs can hope for is better luck in 2028.
December 4, 2025 at 11:58 PM