Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 37 authorizes the court to impose terminating sanctions in civil case, but that is an extraordinary rare and extreme remedy, and usually would only be applied if lesser sanctions have not worked. As extraordinary as this case is, I don't think any of the judges what do that.River wrote:Is there a mechanism for a judge to just pull the plug on a defendant mid-litigation or do we have to watch this sh*tshow to the end?
However, my understanding is that the New York judge has ordered that each individual attorney that they are seeking to replace submit a sworn statement stating why he or she needs to withdraw from the case, so unless they give up on trying to replace the attorneys, we should learn more about exactly what is going on with that.
There has long been abundant evidence that the reason they want to add the citizenship question is discriminatory, to boost the voting power of non-Hispanic whites. That evidence was greatly increased when longtime GOP gerrymandering guru Tom Hofeller died and his daughter turned the hard drive of his computer over to Common Cause, one of the organizations fighting the census question, that specifically stated that adding the citizenship question would aid "Republicans and non-Hispanic whites."Can someone explain what I'm not understanding about the significance of citizenship related to Congressional districts?
I literally have no idea.What would be the potential reasons for only wanting to invalidate the law in the states that were contesting it?