Type to search


Kavanaugh gives sneak-peek into potential contested election ruling and libs are freaking out

Liberals are preparing for the first fruits of the appointment of ACB to the Supreme Court by freaking out about a footnote from Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh that says the state courts do not have the authority to rewrite election laws; that instead state legislatures still control the voting rules. The footnote came in a decision concerning Wisconsin’s ability to count votes after the deadline imposed by the legislature in 2020.

The majority accorded with the position of the Trump administration, which worries that courts could arbitrarily extend voting deadlines until vote counters get the result they are looking for.

In a 5-3 vote, the Justices struck down a district court ruling that nullified the state legislature and instead allowed the court to determine when the votes would stop being counted.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority, and also provided a footnote that gave three reasons why he agreed with the majority.

“First, he wrote, making changes so close to an election invites chaos and confusion. Second, it’s not the job of the courts to handle COVID-19 – but rather, that of the legislature. There’s no practical reason to substitute the judgment of a court for that of a legislature,” notes Law and Crime.

So what exactly has liberals so terrified?

Bush versus Gore, 2000.

Bush v. Gore essentially held that Florida Supreme Court violated the equal protection clause when ordering a recount of a ballots in the contested presidential election.

“Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court’s decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do,” says Oyez.org.

Besides just being one big nightmare in their collective psyche, Bush v. Gore says that state courts can’t screw with elections.

“In an 18-page lecture, the justice cast doubt on the legitimacy of many mail ballots and endorsed the most sinister component of Bush v. Gore,says Slate.

That’s enough to make any liberal cold with fear.

“Holy s***—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,” said Mark Joseph Stern, a writer for uber-lib magazine, Slate—and apparently a guy with a limited vocabulary.

More important is the signal that the court has now turned away from being progressive, into a much more moderate, even conservative organ of government.

“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,” said Stern.

While it may come as a shock to liberals that Roberts isn’t a great conservative, that’s been apparent for years to conservatives.

But there may be something else at work.

It may be that Roberts just looked conservative in 2005 when he was nominated in comparison to the recent history of the court he was joining.

But that was 15 years and six Justices ago.

That’s a long time, even in politics.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter
There are a million ways to get your news.
We want to be your one in a million.
Stay Updated
Give it a try, you can unsubscribe anytime.
Send this to a friend