Also: The Eleventh Circuit rejected Florida's request that it be allowed to enforce its anti-drag law on appeal.
Is the routine reporting of who appointed what judge a new (ish) thing? Was there a time when, for all but the most controversial opinions, we did not care about that?
What do we DO with a justice who decides he know better that the district court about the credibility of a witness, without having actually seen that witness? I can see rejecting reliance on a witness where the witness is dead wrong--say, in a boundary dispute going with the testimony of a witness who argues that because the earth is flat the measurements change. But credibility?
Kagan in "this is some b.s. you are trying to sell us" mode.
So, Alito was outvoted in Allen v Milligan, contra Rucho, and he's back again with (mis)arguing "clear error" doctrine in order to avoid confronting the "racial" component of the SC gerrymandered redistricting map, per Sect 2 of the VRA...is this close to what this is about?