Every time what these decisions comes out from the court with, you know, some tiny little concurrence, it's such an insult to the enormity of the issue and to the debt of the record that was marshaled before a federal judge to demonstrate the urgency of the situation.

For too long, we have approached the discussion of the courts and the debate on individual nominees,

as if this was something playing out at a Princeton eating club.

Hi, and welcome back to amicus.

This is Slate's podcast about the courts and the law.

I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

I cover those things for Slate.

And in a few short days, the 2020 presidential election will take place in the midst of a pandemic among a badly polarized electorate

and with rising threats of vote suppression, vote stealing, and vote uncertainty.

The judicial branch, usually tasked with exerting a stabilizing adult in the room vibe on all this has spent the week doing, well,

anything but on Monday, Justice Amy Coney-Barritt was hurriedly sworn in after failing to

garner a single vote from a Democratic senator.

Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States, accompanied by Justice Clarence Thomas

and Justice Amy

Connie Barrett.

Footage of the ceremony at the White House, Justice Barrett ascending to the South

Portico with the president, pausing for the photo up at the top of the steps, candles

flickering behind them. It was all repurposed as a Trump campaign ad

within hours. The Supreme Court then handed down a rapid fire series of orders in voting

cases out of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina. At least three justices are now

putting forth arguments that have nothing to do with vote fraud, but instead are

making broad claims about state court's authority to interpret state law, and the implication

...