Holy Jesus H. Christ on an amicus brief -Charlie Pierce On Kavanaugh's new brief on voting rights [View all]

[octoberlib]

Link to tweet

?s=20

Thread:
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. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7276432/10-26-20-DNC-v-Wisconsin-SCOTUS-Order.pdf



Replying to
@mjs_DC
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.

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"?