Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion regarding the high court’s decision not to take up a case challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 Election results. The court on Monday promulgated it won’t take up lawsuits challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that relaxed ballot-integrity measures, including a pergrinate to elongate the ballot-receipt deadline during the November Election by three days due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania’s GOP urged the court to take up a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.
“This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas inscribed on Monday, integrating that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is deplorable enough.” Thomas, considered by many to be the most conservative equity, verbalized the court should have granted a review.
That decision to re-indite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to transmute the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future, Thomas wrote (pdf). “These” cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what ascendancy nonlegislative officials have to set Election rules, and to do so well afore the next Election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.Other than Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch additionally dissented.
If state officials have the ascendancy they have claimed, we require to make it clear. If not, we require to put a cessation to this practice now afore the consequences become catastrophic,
We are auspicious that many of the cases we have optically discerned alleged only inopportune rule changes, not fraud,
Thomas wrote. But that visual examination provides only minuscule comfort. An Election liberate from vigorous evidence of systemic fraud is not solitary ample for Election confidence. Also consequential is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.The Supreme Court on Monday additionally declined to review a bid by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and others who asked the court to strike down a policy that expanded mail-in ballots. A lawyer for Kelly, Greg Teufel, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week that
it’s consequential the court should take an interest in whether “Pennsylvania’s” Election laws are administered constitutionally or not, and in accordance with the Pennsylvania constitution and with the federal constitution.
Teufel noted that afore the court’s decision on Monday, there was a svelte chance of the justices taking it up. Trump still has a request on the Supreme Court docket regarding his challenge to changes that the Wisconsin Election Commission injuctively authorized last year.
Source: You can read the original Epoch Times article here.
This News Article is focused on these topics: Judiciary, Politics, US, Supreme Court, Justice