The news you'd hear from the MSM is this:
The Supreme Court declined on Monday Feb. 22, 2021, to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election. And they will make sure to let you know that the Trump team's voter fraud arguments stand no chance even in front of a conservative Supreme Court. (Is it? ?)
This decision has split the court and prompted dissents from three justices: Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.
Now,
let's hear from Justice Clarence Thomas on, in my opinion, why it's embarrassing for the Supreme Court not to deal with the case.
THOMAS, J., dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States
20-542 Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (02/22/2021)
[Link - PDF] [Archived Link - PDF]
A few excerpts:
Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election."
...
Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.
...
In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally cannot restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results.
...
Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.
...
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
The news you'd hear from the MSM is this:
The Supreme Court declined on Monday Feb. 02, 2020, to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election. And they will make sure to let you know that the Trump team's voter fraud arguments stand no chance even in front of a conservative Supreme Court. (Is it? ?)
This decision has split the court and prompted dissents from three justices: Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.
Now,
let's hear from Justice Clarence Thomas on, in my opinion, why it's embarrassing for the Supreme Court not to deal with the case.
THOMAS, J., dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States
20-542 Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (02/22/2021)
[Link - PDF] [Archived Link - PDF]
A few excerpts:
Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election."
...
Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.
...
In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally cannot restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results.
...
Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.
...
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
The news you'd hear from the MSM is this:
The Supreme Court declined on Monday Feb. 02, 2020, to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election. And they will make sure to let you know that the Trump team's voter fraud arguments stand no chance even in front of a conservative Supreme Court. (Is it? ?)
This decision has split the court and prompted dissents from three justices: Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.
Let's hear from Justice Clarence Thomas on, in my opinion, why it's embarrassing for Supreme Court not to deal with the case.
THOMAS, J., dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States
20-542 Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (02/22/2021)
[Link - PDF] [Archived Link - PDF]
A few excerpts:
Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election."
...
Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.
...
In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally cannot restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results.
...
Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.
...
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
The news you'd hear from the MSM is this:
The Supreme Court declined on Monday Feb. 02, 2020, to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election. And they will make sure to let you know that the Trump team stands no chance even in front of a conservative Supreme Court. (Is it? ?)
This decision has split the court and prompted dissents from three justices: Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito.
Let's hear from Justice Clarence Thomas on, in my opinion, why it's embarrassing for Supreme Court not to deal with the case.
THOMAS, J., dissenting. Supreme Court of the United States
20-542 Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid (02/22/2021)
[Link - PDF] [Archived Link - PDF]
A few excerpts:
Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election."
...
Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.
...
In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally cannot restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results.
...
Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.
...
One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.