i think the bottom line here is that at a time when the course legitimacy is under serious question, in light of jobs, chief justice roberts may recognize that it really is in the supreme court s own institutional legitimacy to adopt a code of conduct before one is forced on it. we have a lot of important cases before the court, and surprisingly, dahlia, there s a lot of conversation going into more the harper, which was hard this year about gerrymandering in north carolina. but a lot of jurist and experts say that it has implications that are far greater than jerry meandering in north carolina. it can actually determine elections and president elections in the future. and the new york times has been reporting, another weapon listening to it, to say that the court seemed split on it. there are three conservative justices who seemed to be prepared to entertain some version of the independent state legislator theory, very progressive judges who will not, and then three whom we don t kn
going to drive a hole through antidiscrimination laws. and this is really the dynamic we are not seeing on the new roberts court. there are a couple of really significant cases like the ones we have been describing, when it does seem to be this more moderate center emerging. by contrast, there are a series of really important cases, most notably affirmative action in the voting rights case but you mentioned where we are likely to see a very strong 6 to 3 majority, totally polarized effort to find a compromise. that seems to be where we are in their early terms of this term. and you pointed, out at least a couple cases, there are whole lot of important cases on the docket this season. paula, what stands out to you, what is the one other than more v harper that we re talking about right now, what is the one that you re most interested in or worried about, happy about? there s not much that i am super happy about to be candid, but i will say, i think jeff check off the big boxes. i th
thinking that war v harper s but to change voting as we know it for all time, i am not sure that the court is really really interested in doing that. jeff, dahlia now and i had this conversation, and you actually introduced me to judge and he is a conservative. a lot of people, and this is an entirely, effect is not really partisan, it shouldn t be, it s looking like that on the supreme court, but it shouldn t be, but they re a lot of conservatives who say that this independent state legislator doctrine is a french interpretation of the constitution. s there are indeed, and as dahlia said, it looks like the majority of the court will agree. the maximalist position, as she identified, it doesn t seem to get a majority in the court, and that position would allow a legislature after the fact to change the results of an election. and instead, it is significant, as dahlia has said, that justices kavanaugh and barrett were going towards a moderate solution. you can imagine chief justic