Supreme Court Blocks Citizenship Question From 2020 Census for Now; Supreme Court Says Constitution Does Not Allow Courts to Weigh in on Gerrymandering
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, it could. It would be pretty remarkable because it's now July, in effect, and you would have to get everything drafted by -- October is the date that we've seen that, if there's an emergency, they can still put the forms out after October. It seems unlikely. Again, three federal judges have ruled against the Commerce secretary, saying they believed that he was untruthful. And even John Roberts said -- suggested that the rationale was contrived. He used that word in the decision today. It's hard to see how this proceeds and wins. But again, we should just remember this decision isn't about the census. It's not about just counting noses. It's about representation and government and how people are counted and who has a voice in our democracy. So it's a much bigger broader case. And we need to keep thinking and talking about it in those terms.</s>BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And, Ariane, the justices also ruled that severe gerrymandering can continue. Tell us about this one.</s>ARIANE DE VOGUE, CNN SUPREME COURT REPORTER: This one's totally different, Brianna. Here again, Chief Justice John Roberts, he's writing for a 5-4 majority, but he's siding with the conservatives. At issue here is when politicians go too far in drawing state lines for partisan gain. Critics wanted the courts to step in and say when things went too far. But John Roberts said today that the courts cannot look at such issues, that they have to be left for the political branches. He slammed the courthouse doors on this. He said, "The fact that such partisan gerrymander claims are incompatible with democratic principle does not mean the solution lies with the federal courts." But in court today, Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the liberals, wrote a biting dissent. She was angry. At times at the very end, I even thought I heard her voice crack. She said, "Of all the times to abandon the court's duty to declare the law, this was not the one. The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government." She said, at the end, that she and the other liberals were deeply saddened by the court's decision -- Brianna?</s>KEILAR: OK. Let's -- you're going to have people who like the first ruling, do not like the second ruling for sure. So alternate universe time. Let's say Merrick Garland, who was Obama's Supreme Court nominee, who Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, blocked, let's say he made it through. What would be the effect be on this decision?</s>WILLIAMS: It's hard to see how a Justice Garland would have ruled because frankly it's hard to see -- this is --</s>KEILAR: He would have ruled for gerrymandering?</s>WILLIAMS: In the same way that Justice Roberts -- or Justice -- the justice who replaced -- who filled the seat. I can't remember --</s>KEILAR: Gorsuch.</s>WILLIAMS: Gorsuch. This is a pretty remarkable decision. And it's pretty expansive in its breadth. What's fascinating is Chief Justice Roberts ultimately says, look, I know this is going to be a problem but I think this is beyond the court's review. That's a shockingly broad decision and a shockingly narrow view of what courts can do. And what you see from the court is, we're willing to be judicial activists when it suits the aims of a conservative majority. It is impossible to see how justice -- a Justice Garland would have ruled in the same way on this decision. And it would have, frankly, put more power back in the hands of the people and not allowed, you know, unreasonable stuff.</s>KEILAR: Pop quiz. Name all the justices fast. Just kidding.</s>KEILAR: I know you could. I know you could. Elliot Williams, thank you so much.</s>WILLIAMS: Thank you.</s>KEILAR: Ariane De Vogue, thank you. So as Joe Biden gets ready for the spotlight tonight, we look at some of the most famous moments of his past debates. Also, the one man who loomed large over the first Democratic debate wasn't even there. And he wasn't President Trump. And a new twist in the public feud between the U.S. women's soccer team and the president just a day before their next World Cup match.