In the latest left-wing attack on the U.S. Supreme Court, commentators argued that the justices will side with former President Donald Trump if there is a close election. 

The argument comes from Slate authors Norman Eisen and Jacob Kovacs-Goodman.

The article is based on the assumption that the Supreme Court is a "MAGA" court filled with "MAGA" justices who are ready to do "MAGA's" bidding.

The assumption has been seriously challenged by the decisions made by the Supreme Court during its last term. But, don't tell that to Eisen and Kovacs-Goodman.

Background

The authors, at the outset, make it clear that they are not happy with the recent developments in Arizona.

In the state, there has been a serious legal battle over a law that would require voters to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before being allowed to vote. Advocates argue that such a law is necessary to protect the integrity of our elections, by ensuring that non-citizens can't affect election outcomes.

Here, though, is how the Slate feels about it:

The lawsuit strikes at the heart of voting rights and fair elections: Not only does the RNC seek to prevent tens of thousands of eligible Arizonans from lawfully casting ballots, but they also advance the canard that noncitizens are voting in U.S. elections.

There is plenty of proof that this is not a "canard," that non-citizens have, in fact, voted in U.S. elections. Here is one recent example from Ohio.

The Slate does not mention this.

The latest

What has really gotten under the Slate's skin is that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently given supporters of the Arizona law a partial win.

NPR reports:

And in a 5-4 decision, the high court granted part of that request, allowing Arizona to enforce — for now — a section that requires election officials to reject state voter registration forms that are submitted without an applicant’s proof of U.S. citizenship. That provision will remain in effect as an appeal proceeds.

The Slate argues, "This high-court intervention is wrong, and the stakes could not be higher: Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by only 10,457 votes, and it’s unclear what impact the court’s new ruling could have in November."

The outlet goes on to argue that this preliminary ruling suggests that the high court will come out in Republicans' favor, including by striking down the 1993 National Voter Registration Act. And, of course, the overarching argument that this is the "MAGA" court's attempt to get Trump back in the White House.

We'll have to see if any of this speculation becomes reality.