LogFAQs > #923850521

red sox 777 posted...

but please go to the front page of Scotusblog for a much more fair and not misleading article.

SCOTUSBlog is where I'm actually doing my own heavy lifting on this. I do think Slate is being hyperbolic in its article, but I also don't think you're right.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-commerce-v-new-york/

There are 3 Issues before the court. None of them ask the question of whether the equal protection clause was violated. True, this is because originally - before the new evidence came to light - that the district court had ruled in the governments favor.

I will fully admit I did not listen to oral arguments so if this question was argued anyway I'll admit I was totally wrong and apologize, but... why would it if it's not an issue before the court? (FWIW, a search of "equal" gets no results in the oral argument transcripts, let alone "equal protection")

DOJ is arguing they need to start printing by the end of the month so they need SCOTUS to answer now (and that if they don't SCOTUS will just have to deal with them seeking emergency relief anyway.) Now whether this is true or not we can argue. However, the Fourth Circuit seems to believe they have until October in reality and therefore there should be time to conduct fact-finding and examine the new evidence. Indeed, in the limited remand request, the then-plantiffs cite the government's own witness stating such.

I get the devil's advocate argument is that they're stalling to run the clock, but it seems to be the evidence seems to be on the side of there existing enough time to look into this first and then rule since the district court and Fourth Circuit are taking this seriously. The likelier situation here in my view is DOJ wants to head that off because they fear the results such a fact-finding could unearth.
---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?