SCOTUS unanimously rejects challenge to ‘one person, one vote’

This is most likely the first time the words "has it correct" have ever been strung together in reference to Thomas.

And, in this case, he is, as usual, wrong.

 

Who is worst justice ever on the supreme court? I would believe Thomas has to be in the top 10.

 

That is a very difficult question to answer considering there have been 112 over the last 225 years. I don't think you can really say who the "worst" are but you could probably say influential and I would not put Thomas on that list.

It's also a very weighted argument based your political or issue beliefs. I will say that it's concerning how Thomas went so long without asking any questions in court. To go along with that, he is the most reliably partisan judge on the court. The rulings he writes tend to be the most "inconsequential and technical majority opinions that the justices call dogs" according to the NY Times. A funny (and likely partisan observation)

There are also arguments supporting his style. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/us/justice-clarence-thomas-rulings-studies.html

Those three things could make you feel he usually has his mind made up (more so than other judges) however all of the justices have had a very storied career and that isn't a very fair argument to make against them.

This graph is helpful:

Spoiler

This is the 2nd voting related (I believe) case that this court has ruled on. The 1st was marketed by the news media as striking down parts of the civil rights voting bill which could make you feel they lean a certain way over the issue. However, they struck down a requirement that southern states request permission from the northern states to change their voting rights laws which is a pretty fair objection. It made it by Earl Warren's court in the 60s which was one of the more "liberal" or "spirit of the law" courts in history. They are the ones that struck down segregation in Brown vs. the Board of Education, ending a similar "one man, one vote" law that the current court just voted not to overturn and a lot of other very controversial issues.

The 5th district court is going to rule on the Texas voter ID laws that we have spent a lot of time arguing about. Technically (or legally) those voter ID laws have been ruled as unconstitutional however the state filed an appeal and a delay on the enforcement of that ruling. The issue will be ruled on by the entire 5th court this year. Assuming the whole court follows the opinions of one of the court's committees, they will also strike down the voter ID laws. The issue will ultimately be sent up to the Supreme court next year to work out. You could likely expect a Clinton/Sanders appointee to rule against the law and a Cruz/Trump appointee to rule for it. I have no idea what Garland would do.

A friend of mine who has a law degree (obviously not an expert but worth noting I think) feels strongly that chief justice Roberts wants the voter ID case and will try to rule in favor of the laws. If this becomes a partisan issue then there is no doubt Thomas and Alito will support it and Ginsberg/Breyer/Kagan/Soto will vote against it. It comes down to Roberts, Kennedy or the new appointee.

I'm not sure really how they will judge it. I don't think the law in spirit is unconstitutional. It's the current enforcement that is clearly discriminating against certain groups of people based on their access to necessary documents. They need to somehow force Texas and other states to find a different solution that does not have the same effect.

 

what was he wrong about?

He said that the Constitution has nothing to say about whether total population or voting eligible population should be used to divide districts. And therefore it is not the court's place to make that determination, but rather the individual states.