Connect with us

Opinion

SCOTUS Shuts Out Any and All Cases Discussing Alleged 2020 Election Fraud

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a feisty dissent, however.

After months of nationwide debate on the subject of the 2020 election, the Supreme Court has said “enough”.

The high court has now roundly rejected the possibility of hearing any more cases regarding allegations of election “fraud” surrounding the contest.

“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote –to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.

Trending: Rand Paul Mobbed by Protesters After Trump’s RNC Speech

Thomas was adamant in his dissent, however.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Liberty Hub updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” began Thomas. “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,” Thomas explained, referring to one of the rejected cases. “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.”

“For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution operates as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power to regulate federal elections,” he continued, quoting Supreme Court precedent. “Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”

His point was quite succinct:

“Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections,” he explained. “To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly — although not as consistently as we should — blocked rule changes made by courts close to an election.”

The move is sure to anger the MAGA movement, who fought vociferously for the courts to examine concerns over the processes used in 2020.

Become an insider!

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

You Might Like

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, please mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

You Might Like

Navy Makes Stunning Confession Regarding UFO Footage

News

Andrew Cuomo Scandals Having Major Impact on Brother’s Ratings

Entertainment

Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi Pounces, Makes Mockery of ‘The Squad’ in New Book

*Headline

World Rages as Japan Plans to Dump Fukushima Water into Ocean

News