[Stephen Maturin]

Oofa. There's plenty of reasons to oppose the fuck out of the Kavanaugh nomination, but this ain't one of 'em.

The "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause has zero historical support. SCOTUS basically made it up from whole cloth in the pre-Civil War era as a way to prevent free states from interfering with recovery of fugitive slaves. It's had effects that many would view as beneficial (the separate sovereigns rule was the reason the federal government could try the pigs who beat the shit out of Rodney King even after the pigs were acquitted by a state court jury), but the rule remains junk nonetheless.

Never mind that SCOTUS justices as divergent as Ginsburg and Thomas have expressed doubts about the doctrine's viability. Never mind that both the ACLU and the Cato Institute want it gone. Forget the fact that in Gamble v. U.S. the Trump administration is arguing vigorously to retain the separate sovereigns exception.

The notion that doing away with the separate sovereigns rule would somehow expand the presidential pardon power to include state law crimes simply doesn't wash, and appears based on some pretty fundamental misunderstandings about ho double jeopardy operates. You can't really blame anyone for that, seeing as how double jeopardy jurisprudence is confusing AF, but the rate at which this story is being passed around the internet and accepted as gospel is disheartening.