Nicely narrow decision. I predicted they would decide this way, but not with such tight reasoning.
What a terrible decision. Completely punted on addressing the substantive issue even though it was squarely before the Court.
Frankly, I would rather they had ruled for the baker on the merits of the First Amendment claim.
I mean this is what the Supreme Court tends to do. Go for narrow over broad rulings whenever they can.
Well, my Masterpiece prediction was all sorts of wrong. Of course, the decision was total crap, failing to address the substantive issues and practically inviting future litigation. I mean, what the shit if the case was so tarnished by the path it took, why go through the rigmarole of the arguments at all on any of the substantive issues. Here was the question presented:
Does the decision answer that? No. So lame. Kennedy is the worst writer.
Imagine being a Kennedy clerk. You give the guy a draft and he’s like, “This is far too crisp and clear. Please muddle up this passage, and use more vague adjectives. Like this…”
With brilliant rhetoric like this:
That is just terrible writing. Maybe the baker can be limited, but maybe not!
I don’t think that your view is very nice…or tolerant, and seems very hostile of Kennedy’s writing style.
ETA: Both left and right think Kennedy is full of shit and not rooted in law. It’s a shame that he has written so much bad law in the last 30 years because both of our sides will defer to him to get the 5th vote we need.
Scotusblog is predicting that CJ Roberts will write the redistricting decision that is still outstanding, based on their analysis of the allocation of opinions. If correct, this presumably does not bode in favor of an expansive Court role in the oversight of political considerations in the redistricting process.
Gil was released todayand I got the outcome/rationale right, but the vote count wrong. I thought it would be 5-4, but it looks like there were no actual dissents:
The entire opinion except part III is 9-0, and on Part III is what, 7-0? Vacated and remanded for lack of standing. Sent back to lower court to determine if there is actual standing.
Sorry for not following too closely – which decisons are left? Are they all going to be dumped June 25?
Brian
Respectfully, I don’t think you got the rationale right. They did not say gerrymandering wasn’t justiciable. They said the parties hadn’t proven standing. Indeed, they remanded the case instead of dismissing it.
You’re right. I spoke too soon before reading it carefully. Looking for something like a win on accurate predictions…they did punt 
@N9IWP - Still remaining of the ones identified in the OP are 1, 4, and 6.
A punt indeed. There have been a lot of those. Which is probably for the best. Right now I’m more worried about our democracy as a whole than about any particular case. So keeping SCOTUS out of the spotlight is just aces by me.
I sort of agree, but in a way I disagree. These parties have spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, briefed the issue extensively, and SCOTUS granted cert. This issue will come back up again, possibly with new parties who have standing. Why waste time, money, and legal efforts to bring the same question back up again?
I generally agree. But if ever there were a time for SCOTUS to keep its powder dry, that time is now. We are likely to face some significant constitutional crises in the next 12 months. Better not to have a nasty partisan fight over something that can wait a year.
We’ll see. If my theory is right, then they will punt on the Muslim Ban as well.
After reading Gill, it doesn’t seem like a punt. It seems like a 5-4 upholding the gerrymander without anyone actually saying so and just dancing around the issue. If the four in “concurrence” had Kennedy, it would be a different opinion.
It’s a punt, just the worst kind of punt. You know a remand is proper when the appellate court says, “on remand, the trial court should consider…” You know it’s just a veiled dismissal when the opinion sends the case back without giving the trial court or the parties any guidance at all. The only guidance here is:
Well that the fuck sort of evidence does that require?
But the “concurrence” basically said that if someone shows up at the hearing and: 1) is a mammal, and 2) breathing oxygen, then there is standing. Even under the majority opinion, there just needs to be plaintiffs from each district in Wisconsin and collectively plead a right to vote that would elect Democrats in each district and/or that his particular district was so packed that his vote was wasted.
After we have this redo, then we’ll do it again. I think Kennedy, still trying to believe that he is conservative, is tired of being in a 5-4 of landmark decisions. Remember that the Court did not even take up the SSM cases until the 6th Circuit forced its hand. Kennedy is basically saying that he is too old for this shit.
Did. . . did you just give an Allen charge to the US Supreme Court?
LOL. I guess I did.