Supreme Court Slaps American Voters in the Face: Refuses to Hear Pennsylvania Election Case
Supreme Court Slaps American Voters in the Face: Refuses to Hear Pennsylvania Election Case
READ: Justice Thomas’s Blazing Dissent in Pennsylvania Election Case is One for the Ages
The Supreme Court was going to be one of Donald Trump’s enduring legacies. Now, it appears the court has no shared concern for the widespread voter perception that the 2020 election was not “free and fair.”
The highest court in the land, once again, refused to hear a lawsuit that would substantively judge the merits of challenges to the legitimacy of the U.S. election.
“The justices on Monday declined to take up cases challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the ballot-receipt deadline in last November’s election by three days due to the coronavirus pandemic,” reported Politico.
“The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot,” the ruling said.
As was reported by Kyle Cheney of Politico, the case was denied as “moot.” Meaning, there was no effect from the case.
In dissent was Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito on the matter of hearing the case. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts once again dodged.
[READ MORE.]
peaking up for American voters, however, was Justice Clarence Thomas, who actually should be Chief Justice at this point. He is the only one with the guts and the intellect to lead this feckless waste of a court out of its doldrums.
Clarence Thomas speaks for millions with his blistering dissents. Read it and absorb it in full to recognize what a sham decision the court rendered today:
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.
The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.
[READ MORE.]
Looks like Barrett is a waste of skin. Maybe she thought job description was "Prom Queen."