Clarence Thomas asserts that imaginary voter fraud justifies extensive vote suppression lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2021/02/claren…
Thomas also repeats the silly argument from Rehnquist's nutty Bush v. Gore concurrence that giving legislatures power in the first instance (in election law and no other context) preempts subsequent judicial or executive action 
But this makes no sense. Section 5 of the Pennsylvania state constitution guarantees that “[e]lections shall be free and equal.” During the pandemic, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreted this to require extended deadlines to ensure that no voter was disenfranchised.
Reasonable people can disagree with this interpretation, but the idea that state courts reasonably interpreting state constitutions in the context of elections violates Article I Section 4 is absolutely idiotic unless you think judicial review itself is illegitimate
Put it this way: it's argument so bad that 40% of the justices WHO JOINED BUSH v. GORE were unwilling to sign off on it because it was too implausible. The logic implodes on the slightest inspection, and yet it will almost certainly be the law of the land by 2024
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
