Legal expert reveals 'the worst part' of the Supreme Court's latest ruling

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on mail-in voting changes was a nakedly "partisan" move to please President Donald Trump, and one top legal expert explained how "the worst part" of the decision makes that clear.

Andrew Weissmann is a veteran attorney and legal counsel, having served over a decade as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, as well as in various legal roles at the FBI and former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. He now makes numerous media appearances where he offers legal insights into the various misdeeds of the Trump administration, including in his role as a legal analyst for MS NOW.

Over the weekend, he appeared as a guest on the latest edition of the "Fast Politics" podcast with host Molly Jong-Fast, with the conversation largely revolving around the Supreme Court's recent 6-3 ruling to allow Trump's executive order demanding changes to mail-in voting to proceed. The decision, coming down along familiar partisan lines, found that one of the lawsuits brought against the order was too early, as the changes had not yet been put forward.

After the new changes were put forward, however, the federal government tried to argue that a lawsuit brought against the order should be dismissed, as it was now too late and close to the midterms, which Weissmann described as a particularly galling but predictable switch-up after the Supreme Court's argument.

During the conversation, Weissmann also highlighted the part of the court's ruling that he found to be "the worst part," and one that gave away just how committed the conservative justices are to Trump's agenda.

"So let me just tell you the worst part of the Supreme Court decision: Even though I told you what its holding was, one of the things it did is it described the executive order as [saying] that the language of the executive order was to combat fraud," Weissmann said, which Jong-Fast agreed was a "ridiculous" description.

"I mean... that that was such a partisan description," Weissmann continued. "And then it also had language saying, well, this is just the president dealing with what his own executive branch can do."

Weissmann previously explained that Trump's efforts to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting were blatantly unlawful, flying directly in the face of the Constitution's intention for the states to run their own elections. If left up to the president in any capacity, Weissmann added, they could just decide that the race had been won by themselves or their party. Trump's anti-mail-in voting crusade could also conceivably see him deny Democrats the right to vote in the manner and reserve it exclusively for Republicans.