Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign to challenge 10,000 late-arriving ballots in PA. Trumpers here had been citing this as yet another claim that the election "wasn't over," but since the court won't hear the case that is yet another nail in their coffin.
Of course they refuse to hear it. We must get the conditioning and desensitization started for the next time around. Public sentiment must reach the threshold of, "It doesn't matter because there is nothing anyone can do about it anyway."
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign to challenge 10,000 late-arriving ballots in PA. Trumpers here had been citing this as yet another claim that the election "wasn't over," but since the court won't hear the case that is yet another nail in their coffin.
This is why the 2020 election result will never be accepted.
By refusing to hear each lawsuit, the court is failing to provide closure.
Former President Donald Trump and the Pennsylvania Republican Party were among those urging the justices to grant review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling. Only about 10,000 ballots arrived during the three-day window, well short of the number that could have imperiled Joe Biden’s 80,555-vote victory in the Keystone state.
The justices offered no public explanation for their rejection of the cases, but one member of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented. He said the court should have granted review, even though the dispute was effectively moot, and he took a swipe at his colleagues for the decision to pass up the cases.
“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 wrote. “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.”
Thomas' reasoning is irrefutable.
It's as though a court rejected a case where someone who broke into a guy's house, lifted his banking information, and stole $5,000 out of one of his bank accounts. The court decided the case was "moot" because the victim has $10,000 in another account that the crook never touched, and so the victim wasn't bankrupted.
This is why the 2020 election result will never be accepted.
By refusing to hear each lawsuit, the court is failing to provide closure.
The alternate view is-by refusing to support nonsense, the SC makes it clear its nonsense. These arguments have been heard by judges. The SC is not there for the initial lawsuit, they are not finders of fact. The time and place to provide that evidence is at the initial court level. And they simply put, have failed to do so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
