Judge Engoron's ruling is awe-inspiring---not only in its consequences but in its 'fresh' perception of how real estate businesses might aspirationally value holdings when approaching investment credit agencies, yet reach incredible, objectively-absurd property values. More than half of Trump's 'self-defenses' against legal suits have amounted to sophist excuses (like the presumption that property valuation in New York City is typically 'sold' in utterly speculative ways), to arguments that legal procedure was violated, or simply to higher court appeals, with the expectation that a recent appointee would exhibit fealty when the patron requests his favorable outcome.
What I don't understand is the (it seems to me) relative indifference with which progressive political associations have permitted the Supreme Court to undermine continually the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I'm in Alabama. In a highly surprising move, Roberts and Kavanaugh recently sided with the Court's three progressive judges to sustain the three-judge circuit court's opinion that Alabama's legislative redistricting gerrymander diluted Alabama's black citizens' rights to 'one-person, one-vote'. Neither Roberts nor Kavanaugh have every been less than enemies of the Voting Rights Act (their support of the three liberal Justices suggested a ploy to negate claims that conservative Justices were merely ruling according to partisan preferences, regardless of constitutional precedent). A month ago, Alabama's Attorney General took virtually the same Republican-gerrymandered map back for appeal to SCOTUS because he suspected Kavanaugh might change his ruling if the AG wasn't shooting for the moon---attempting to have the whole class of obvious racially-motivated gerrymanders rendered 'invisible' ('color-blind') as part of courts' large class of precedent-protected partisan gerrymanders. Alabama's Attorney General's failure to force concessions from SCOTUS that its conservative majority is all-too-willing to make is a game-changer for Alabama's black politicians and Black-belt communities. And SCOTUS' setting precedent by securing the Voting Rights Act has [potentially] immense consequences for other states with majority-white Republican legislatures seeking to overthrow established constitutional precedents. Why does this get so little acknowledgement and concern from 'progressive' politicians?
I found the original SCOTUS modification of the Voting Rights Act really rather shocking, and thus Roberts and Kavanaugh shifting their ground in this later ruling puzzling. The first move was so grossly instrumental and motivated by an extra-judicial political philosophy that views all remedies for discrimination as suspect. As you suggest here, it either means that the two of them on further reflection became uncomfortable with the overtly political logic of the initial decision or they became uncomfortable being confronted with the outrageousness of the Alabama AG's plan.
Judge Engoron's ruling is awe-inspiring---not only in its consequences but in its 'fresh' perception of how real estate businesses might aspirationally value holdings when approaching investment credit agencies, yet reach incredible, objectively-absurd property values. More than half of Trump's 'self-defenses' against legal suits have amounted to sophist excuses (like the presumption that property valuation in New York City is typically 'sold' in utterly speculative ways), to arguments that legal procedure was violated, or simply to higher court appeals, with the expectation that a recent appointee would exhibit fealty when the patron requests his favorable outcome.
What I don't understand is the (it seems to me) relative indifference with which progressive political associations have permitted the Supreme Court to undermine continually the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I'm in Alabama. In a highly surprising move, Roberts and Kavanaugh recently sided with the Court's three progressive judges to sustain the three-judge circuit court's opinion that Alabama's legislative redistricting gerrymander diluted Alabama's black citizens' rights to 'one-person, one-vote'. Neither Roberts nor Kavanaugh have every been less than enemies of the Voting Rights Act (their support of the three liberal Justices suggested a ploy to negate claims that conservative Justices were merely ruling according to partisan preferences, regardless of constitutional precedent). A month ago, Alabama's Attorney General took virtually the same Republican-gerrymandered map back for appeal to SCOTUS because he suspected Kavanaugh might change his ruling if the AG wasn't shooting for the moon---attempting to have the whole class of obvious racially-motivated gerrymanders rendered 'invisible' ('color-blind') as part of courts' large class of precedent-protected partisan gerrymanders. Alabama's Attorney General's failure to force concessions from SCOTUS that its conservative majority is all-too-willing to make is a game-changer for Alabama's black politicians and Black-belt communities. And SCOTUS' setting precedent by securing the Voting Rights Act has [potentially] immense consequences for other states with majority-white Republican legislatures seeking to overthrow established constitutional precedents. Why does this get so little acknowledgement and concern from 'progressive' politicians?
I found the original SCOTUS modification of the Voting Rights Act really rather shocking, and thus Roberts and Kavanaugh shifting their ground in this later ruling puzzling. The first move was so grossly instrumental and motivated by an extra-judicial political philosophy that views all remedies for discrimination as suspect. As you suggest here, it either means that the two of them on further reflection became uncomfortable with the overtly political logic of the initial decision or they became uncomfortable being confronted with the outrageousness of the Alabama AG's plan.