Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning."
Reposted by Mike Masnick
https://bsky.app/profile/masnick.com
Mark Joseph Stern
@mjsdc.bsky.social
This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.
Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
· 10h
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads:
"Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial courts order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the States intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial courts order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial courts order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants motions for a stay."
ALT
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review [f]inal judgments or decrees that are rendered by a States highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals February 11 order falls
within that category.
ALT
9:54 AM · Mar 3, 2026
Steve Vladeck
@mjsdc.bsky.social
This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.
Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
· 10h
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads:
"Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial courts order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the States intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial courts order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial courts order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants motions for a stay."
ALT
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review [f]inal judgments or decrees that are rendered by a States highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals February 11 order falls
within that category.
ALT
9:54 AM · Mar 3, 2026
This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T14:54:24.812Z
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads:
"Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial courts order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the States intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial courts order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial courts order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants motions for a stay."
ALT
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review [f]inal judgments or decrees that are rendered by a States highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals February 11 order falls
within that category.
ALT
8:59 AM · Mar 3, 2026
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
— Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social) 2026-03-03T13:59:25.400Z
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning." (Original Post)
mahatmakanejeeves
10 hrs ago
OP
spooky3
(38,510 posts)1. The majority misstated facts in the football coach and prayers case, too.
Shameless.
The Wizard
(13,674 posts)2. Supreme Dissembler
Sammy The Weasel.