Just in case anybody’s as passionately interested as I am in the Gill v Whitford gerrymandering case before the Supreme Court, I just spotted this fairly gratifying subtlety on SCOTUSBlog:
For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that Chief Justice John Roberts has met with criticism for suggesting during the oral argument in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford “that forcing the court to make … decisions” about “when normal politics became unconstitutional bias” “would put the justices in a no-win position and tarnish the reputation that they — he — had worked hard to burnish.” At the Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Post hopes that the court does not rely on its relative lack of expertise in statistical analysis to “abdicate its responsibility” in Whitford “to craft some meaningful and manageable measures of partisan interference with the electoral process.”
And although you might not spot another good sign in this note, the Volokh Conspiracy is “libertarian,” which to me means under the thrall of the Koch Bros–whose corrupt philosophy (and money) bought them Wisconsin, Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and Wisconsin’s specific little problem with gerrymandering. Which keeps Scott Walker, Paul Ryan and other empty barrels in office.
If Volokh is calling on Roberts not to “abdicate…responsibility” in Gill, gee whiz.