Go here to read it. I doubt the decision striking down the Texas redistricting map will survive review by the Fifth Circuit.
Scorching Dissent
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
It took them 160 pages of law blather to arrive at this conclusion?
Bloated judicial opinions are the bane of my existence Art. Justice Holmes, famous for his concise opinions, always wrote them at a standup desk. When he got tired, he knew it was time to bring the opinion to a close. Judicial opinions are what happens when huge egos, in most cases, have no editors. The meat of most opinions is usually contained in a few paragraphs or a few pages.
Mine too. That’s the reason why we get word salad from empty heads. If your arguments are clear, well founded and supportable by precedent you don’t need all those words. You only need them if you’re trying to justify something that makes absolutely no sense, gives no rational argument or is inconsistent with precedent.
That’s why we get word salad from empty heads. If your arguments are clear, rational and founded by precedent you don’t need all those words. It’s only if your arguments are not rational and well-founded that you need all those words. I’m going to call on that eminent jurist WC Fields for support, “if you can’t convince them with brilliance baffle them with BS.”
Not sure it was fair of the video host to characterize Judge Smith, appointed to the Fifth Circuit in 1987 by Ronaldus Magnus, as a “”Pro MAGA” judge. He just thinks judges should stay in their lane, and not take political sides. What a concept. But that is by far the most fun dissent I’ve read in a long time. 😆
It’s not hard to devise a mechanistic procedure for drawing legislator constituencies which would allow little discretion and have close to a unique solution each year redistricting took place. The downside would be that the districts would (with few exceptions) have similar populations but would not be equipopulous within an arbitrary standard. Populations would generally be withing 25% of the mean with the very most populous perhaps 2x that of the very least. The case law compiled since 1963 does not allow that. Robert Bork had an amusing critique of the redistricting decisions in their bases and applications. It would be agreeable to sweep the entire edifice away and start fresh.
Don,
You have my apologies for commenting earlier without reading the opinion. I haven’t laughed as much since the amicus brief in Novak v City of Parma. “Tu stultus es” would have been an appropriate way of starting this dissent. Immediately after “I dissent.” That is without question one of the most epic legal takedowns I’ve ever read and I’ve read a lot. It’s going to leave a mark. Judicially and otherwise. My first thought was the frame it and put it up in my study but it’s too long, so I’m just going to get a brass plaque that says only “I dissent” to put up in my study.
It’s a keeper LKL! The most entertaining judicial opinion I have read since Scalia went to the highest Court of all.