Nathaniel Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, where he has taught since 2013, and is a nationally recognized scholar of constitutional law, election law, and the democratic process... (wikipedia)
We are at a defining moment. The court is going to decide when political parties go too far in rigging electoral districts for their own advantage.
The process was corrupt and we never really had a chance to convince the Justice Department to block this map.
New Jersey is trying incrementally to bring gay couples into the same regime of benefits as heterosexual couples. But then the question for the court becomes, if you're willing to go that far, why don't you go all the way?
I think there is some sense by the court that it's time to stop the madness.
The problem in these cases is that fundamentally it is all just a matter of degree: How much partisanship is too much partisanship.
The one-person, one-vote cases are the example of the judiciary being the most activist ever . . . it led to the redrawing of districts for almost every representative institute in the United States, from the smallest town council to congressional delegations.
You're going to get a blizzard of ads on TV for the period of one to two months. The amount of spending per day will be astronomical.
This is a run-of-the mill campaign finance tactic.
The fate of who controls the House of Representatives could lie with this decision.
I don't think the hearings gave us a much better sense of how he will approach hot-button social issues.