Holy shit—Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore, which was too extreme for Kennedy or O'Connor.

This is a red alert. I can't believe he put it in a footnote. This is terrifying. assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276…
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and make sure it's counted.

But arguably the bigger news is that Brett Kavanaugh endorsed a theory so radical that the court refused to adopt it in Bush v. Gore. My God.
This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behind an extreme theory that would severely limit state courts' ability to protect voting rights. It's the revenge of Bush. v. Gore. Actually, it's much worse.
How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting that federal courts should keep their noses out of a state court's interpretation of its own state's election laws.

Roberts is now the moderate on voting rights.
Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run.
As fate would have it, I wrote about this exact issue in an article that published minutes before SCOTUS handed down this order. I urge you to read it, because this is the next fight. It's already here. We're staring down the barrel of Bush v. Gore II. slate.com/news-and-polit…
We should be extremely worried that Kavanaugh would use this Trumpian rhetoric to describe counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. 18 states and DC count these ballots. Does Kavanaugh think that creates "chaos and suspicions of impropriety"?
With Barrett's vote, the Supreme Court is poised to become a Supreme Board of Elections with freewheeling power to stomp on state courts that try to protect voting rights. What Kavanaugh and Gorsuch did tonight is a five-alarm fire for democracy. slate.com/news-and-polit…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

28 Oct
By a 5–3 vote, the Supreme Court has refused to stop Pennsylvania from counting ballots that are mailed by Election Day but arrive up to three days later. Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. Read it: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Note: Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in this decision, but she did NOT recuse herself. She simply decided that she joined too late to participate.
This statement is a clear indication that, while Amy Coney Barrett didn't participate this time, she will NOT recuse herself from future election litigation.
Read 5 tweets
28 Oct
I am still stuck on Brett Kavanaugh claiming states “want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night.” No state definitively announces the results on election night. None. How can it be that Kavanaugh doesn’t understand basic election law?
In 2018, putative liberals like Lisa Blatt and Akhil Amar assured us that Kavanaugh was brilliant, a genius, one of the finest legal minds of the nation. But these claims are impossible to square with Kavanaugh’s work on the court. It’s bizarre! slate.com/news-and-polit…
Roberts? Super smart guy. Alito? Basically an evil genius. Gorsuch? He can drive me nuts but the brainpower is obvious. Thomas? His fans overstate his intellect but his detractors underestimate it; he is often a very original thinker.

But Kavanaugh is just thoroughly mediocre!
Read 4 tweets
23 Oct
A former National Review fellow wrote an NYT article claiming there are a bunch of secret Trump voters in Atlanta. For evidence, she cited "an attorney"—who turns out to be the president of Atlanta's Young Republicans chapter.

NYT deletes that entire section with no correction.
Those of you questioning the relevance of the author being a former National Review fellow are probably right. The NYT's handling of the error is the real story here, not the reporter's background. I did not mean to imply that she intended to conceal Evans' affiliations.
Read 4 tweets
22 Oct
By a 5–3 vote, the Supreme Court BLOCKS a lower court order that had allowed Alabama counties to implement curbside voting. So curbside voting will remain banned.

Sotomayor dissents, joined by Kagan and Breyer. Ginsburg would’ve dissented, as well. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Sotomayor’s dissent closes with the poignant story of Howard Porter, Jr., which is the kind of thing only Sotomayor would think to pluck out of the record and deploy in an opinion. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Just to be clear, the district court merely *allowed* Alabama counties to offer curbside voting. The court didn’t require anybody to do anything. It’s remarkable that the five conservatives (soon to be joined by a sixth) would reach out and slap down such a modest accommodation.
Read 4 tweets
20 Oct
Ian is right—tonight’s order from the Supreme Court is terrifying. Four conservative justices supported a radical theory that would empower state legislatures to violate election laws and engage in voter suppression with impunity. Only Roberts balked.
supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Tonight four conservative Supreme Court justices indicated their support for a radical, anti-democratic theory that would stop state Supreme Courts from enforcing state election laws to protect the franchise. And Barrett could soon give them a fifth vote. slate.com/news-and-polit…
This was unthinkable just a few years ago. I expected the worst but I’m still stunned. The Supreme Court has veered so far to the right that four justices would deny state courts the power to enforce election laws in their own states. Profoundly disturbing.slate.com/news-and-polit…
Read 6 tweets
11 Oct
It's not just staggering, but well-documented.

Republicans accused Democrats of court-packing when Obama *tried to fill vacant seats* on the DC Circuit. They refused to let Obama fill tons of other vacancies for purely partisan reasons.

And they bragged about it on the record.
Yes, McConnell refused to confirm Obama's judicial nominees from 2015-2016. But Republicans started indefinitely blocking Obama's nominees with blue slips long before that. They kept seats open for years on end just to ensure that Obama wouldn't fill them.
So many of Trump's judges—including the most brazenly partisan hacks—are sitting in stolen seats. Amy Coney Barrett's seat was stolen from Myra Selby, a Black Obama nominee. And Republicans effectively *shrank the 5th Circuit* to stop Obama's nominees.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!