The Supreme Court today decided against taking an election fraud case out of the state of Pennsylvania that dealt with the controversial decision by the state, upheld by its Supreme Court, to allow post-dated mail-in ballots to be counted. Supporters of President Donald Trump say the decision allowed for illegal ballots to be counted and helped the state be declared for pro-abortion Joe Biden.
Justice Clarence Thomas slammed the decision to decline the case, saying the nation’s highest court missed an important opportunity to address election fraud and mail-in ballots.
“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.”
“One wonders what this Court waits for,” wrote Thomas at the end of his 11-page dissent. “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,” he continued. “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more from us.”
“I respectfully dissent,” Thomas concluded.
Please follow LifeNews.com on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Thomas in the dissent while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Justice Amy Coney Barrett opted not to participate in that vote saying she did not have sufficient time to study the issue.
Altio was also unhappy and said the decision to not take the case leaves in place a dangerous precedent.
Justice Samuel Alito said: “The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”