by Ace
Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot
It’s almost as if they’re willing to resort to claiming any ol’ doctrine to avoid saying that you’re not allowed to violate the Constitution when you change election rules last-minute.
Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented.
On Monday, the Supreme Court threw out several of the remaining challenges to the 2020 presidential election as moot, considering that former President Donald Trump conceded to Joe Biden, who has now become president. Yet Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court should have taken the opportunity to clarify election law, especially in the case of Pennsylvania.
“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” Thomas wrote. “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.”
Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “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.”
“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,” Thomas argued. “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.”
I can explain it: the “Shadow conspiracy” article in Time Magazine explained it.
The Shadow Conspiracy article in Time was written to alert the left that these changes were absolutely critical to fake-winning the election, and that therefore, anyone on the left and anyone supporting the permanent corrupt Deep State must fight with all their might to keep these illegal rules in place.
Remember, these last-minute illegal changes were mostly justified by the pandemic threat.
But the left might not have that justification in 2022.
So the people who rigged the election told their stories to Time to let the rest of the left know: Even if there is no major pandemic threat in 2022, you must fight tooth and nail to retail the illegal rules changes we instituted supposedly “because of the pandemic.”
Or else you’ll just lose.
I guess the Supreme Court figured that much out.
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”
“Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose,” Alito argued. While a decision in these cases “would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” it would “provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”
By the way, they keep saying that this wouldn’t effect the results of the election because they have repeatedly sifted the number of challenges down to the point where we’re talking about just a couple of thousand ballots.
They’ve figured out other ways to ignore the challenges to all the other ballots.
It’s like breaking down a cargo into a hundred pieces and saying of each tiny piece, “No, this won’t meaningfully affect the ship’s seaworthiness. No this one also won’t meaningfully affect the ship’s seaworthiness. No this one also won’t appreciably affect the ship’s seaworthiness…”
Yeah but take them all together and the ship sinks.
Let me put this simply:
Teams that are winning and have the advantage in points don’t start changing the rules for what counts as a “point” behind-the-scenes.
The team that is behind changes the rules.
This must then happen at State level make our legislatures put real teeth in election laws. The WEC needed to be jailed long ago. At least 2 clerks doing time here for handing out ballots without applications.
I am getting tired of the odd decisions of the 3 stooges that Trump appointed. What else can they do to treat him unfairly?
A big disadvantage of being “an outlander” is that you re not familiar with “the players”. It was too easy for the GOP liberals to get Don to promote other GOP liberals! These 3 are just one example.
It is obvious that very few in power have any interest in restoring the faith in the integrity of our elections. The WAS fraud and it was widespread. Did it turn the election? Well I think so, but it has to be proven or disproven to answer. No one seems interest in confirming our elections are secure and honest.
There is but one conclusion to draw: there was fraud, everyone knows it and it is believed that if enough people just ignore it, everyone will forget it happened. Or some such idiocy.
Nope. It only makes it worse. So far, the record is perfect; not ONE accusation of fraud has been proven invalid.
@Deplorable Me: Fraud is secondary to how they violated States constitutions and election laws, its the Medias ignorant spin the suits are about the fraud or Trumps Ego.
@Frank Sullivan: Sure there are 2 security videos one from MI and one from GA.
Why were there absentee ballots without application in WI?
Why were the tabulators online?