[EL] Abbott v. Perez, on the oddity of the oral argument revisited

[Pildes, Rick]

For now, I want to comment only on one aspect of this decision, since it will take a bit of time to digest the important merits issues decided.  But at the time of the argument, I wrote a post I what I called "The Oddity of the Oral Argument in the Texas Redistricting Cases."<"The%20Oddity%20of%20the%20Oral%20Argument%20in%20the%20Texas%20Redistricting%20Cases,">  Instead of focusing on the merits, much of the argument centered on whether the case was properly before the Court at all - and I thought that was peculiar because it seemed the Court had already decided that issue, 5-4, when it had granted a stay much earlier in the case.  The Court did indeed divided today 5-4 on that procedural issue.  But as I feared, the Court went on to make a good deal of substantive law on the merits, and almost none of those issues were fully engaged in the oral argument.  It seemed to me unfortunate then, and even more unfortunate now, that such important substantive law about the VRA and redistricting was being made without sustained discussion at oral argument.  That's not to say anything would have changed about the outcome, we have no way of knowing that.


Best,
Rick

Richard H. Pildes
Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
NYU School of Law, Vanderbilt Hall 507
40 Washington Square South, NY, NY 10012
212 998-6377

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180625/4583f00b/attachment.html>