Today's episode of the Nightly Nuance discusses Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature. With the caveat that any opinion from Justice Kavanaugh makes me act like a disgruntled pelican, let's recap with the Roses to attempt to numb the effects.

6 weeks out from Election Day, a District Court extended the deadline for counting WI absentee ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 to Nov. 9. In WI, you can request an absentee ballot until Oct. 29. With Covid, it takes ~ 2 weeks to return the ballot, so the math is...not hard

Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito voted to prevent the District Court's order from being enforced without giving us a majority opinion.

Roberts wrote a concurring opinion saying this case is different from the recent Pennsylvania case (where he voted with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer) because a FEDERAL court usurped a state legislature. It's different when a STATE court interprets STATE law.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote a (too-long) concurring opinion saying 1) The District Court acted too close to Election Day; 2) state legislatures are responsible for the pandemic, and 3) the District Court didn't appreciate how important deadlines are.

Kavanaugh set legal twitter aflame with his praise for Justice Rehnquist's opinion in Bush v. Gore. He dropped a footnote that felt like the worst kind of foreshadowing, saying that state courts interpreting state election rules can create federal constitutional questions.

He also has pages and pages of a petty spat with Justice Kagan about whether he disagrees with the District Court's findings of fact or conclusions of law. He SWEARS YOU GUYS THAT HE CARES ABOUT THE PANDEMIC BUT IS JUST CONSTRAINED HERE BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Kagan, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, is not pleased. Wisconsin, she says, is the hottest of hot spots. The District Court did its job, and the Supremes should respect that. She is particularly disdainful of Kavanaugh's concurring opinion.

Justice Kagan says, I'm sorry, how does adding days to count ballots confuse or discourage voters?

And she says voters are going to be disenfranchised here (she means that PRECISELY not RHETORICALLY, BRETT) just like in other cases where the SCOTUS is failing to protect the nation's elections from Covid and politicians who stand to benefit when votes aren't counted.

More on http://Patreon.com/pantsuitpolitics for our Supporters, with the admission that I'm feeling exceptionally salty today because a person I doubt has ever read a Supreme Court opinion has now chosen 1/3 of the Court. -b