Originalism? A close reading of the text of the Constitution? Strict respect for the law as written? Nonsense. Even Chief Justice John Roberts, who has made a career of disabling the Voting Rights Act, hasn’t been on board with the consistently pro-Republican Party, anti-voting rights’ series of grotesque rationales Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alioto, and Thomas have adopted in case after case after case.

Harry Litman in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, after Justice Kavanaugh cited Bush v. Gore as precedent:

The deciding principle of Bush vs. Gore is generally understood to be no more than this: George W. Bush wins. Or, to be as charitable as possible toward the five members of the court who made up the majority: The ruling was necessary to stop the partisan bloodletting and chaos generated by hanging chads in Florida.
The decision was so tenuous and rushed that the justices themselves, in a stunning departure from judicial practice, wrote into the unsigned opinion that it should not serve as a precedent: It was “limited only to the present circumstances.”
Nonetheless, Kavanaugh on Monday embraced the most far-fetched theory laid out in Bush vs. Gore, in a separate opinion written by Rehnquist, who was straining to figure out a way to insert the court into the Florida mess.

Next up in the stampede to indelibly brand SCOTUS as a tool of Republican voter suppression, Neil Gorsuch, who in a dissent trampled on precedent and federalism to overrule a state supreme court ruling on the state’s constitution and statutes, as described by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate:

Gorsuch’s approach here—going over state law with a fine-toothed comb to see if the state court got it right—is a stunning assault on state sovereignty. An oddly timed one, too: It is outrageous enough to reject an unbroken line of precedent that lets states run their own elections; it’s another thing to do so six days before Election Day. The Supreme Court’s ultraconservative faction appears bent on destabilizing this election. These justices are teeing up another Bush v. Gore if the presidential race comes down to Pennsylvania or North Carolina. They have laid the groundwork to nullify late-arriving ballots on the basis of a dangerous constitutional theory that even Chief Justice John Roberts finds too extreme.

Donald Trump will soon lose the popular vote to Joe Biden by a greater margin than he did to Hillary Clinton in 2016. If all the votes are counted, Donald Trump will lose the Electoral College to Joe Biden. The slender thread his reelection hangs on is the Republican Party’s campaign of voter suppression, which Trump and the GOP hope will lead to a victory via machinations in the courts or a state legislature (or two) or Congress — not one decided at the ballot box.

A resounding Biden victory with a decisive judgment rendered by American voters will not guarantee that Republicans cannot steal the election, but it’s our best bet at this stage. Judicial rulings to stop votes from being tallied — as with Bush v. Gore — is the last thing this country needs. One stolen election in two decades is more than enough.

(Image: Brett Kavanaugh September 27, 2018, vowing revenge on Democrats:

“This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. And millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade competent and good people of all political persuasions, from serving our country.

And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.”)