Holy shit--Brett Kavanaugh just endorsed Rehnquist's concurrence in Bush v. Gore

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Mark Joseph Stern
@mjs_DC
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…
Image[/divj

Unrolled thread here
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1320873994032205824.html

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…
Image

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.
Image

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.
Image

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.

Amy Coney Barrett’s First Votes Could Throw the Election to Trump
A sinister argument from Bush v. Gore returns with a vengeance.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/barrett-election-bush-v-gore-vengeance.html
• • •

[SMC22307]

1. "Holy shit"? NO ONE should be surprised by this. NO ONE. (n/t)

[TwilightZone]

2. Surprising no one.

Except for Mark Joseph Stern, apparently.

[Iliyah]

3. Surprised - no ....

[UTUSN]

4. Uh wha'hoppen to the "not to be used" stand-alone part of that so-called decision?

Oh, silly me, thinking that wingnuts would abide by legalities.