Supreme Court Slaps American Voters in the Face: Refuses to Hear Pennsylvania Election Case

The Supreme Court was going to be one of Donald Trump’s enduring legacies. Now, it appears the court has no shared concern for the widespread voter perception that the 2020 election was not “free and fair.”

The highest court in the land, once again, refused to hear a lawsuit that would substantively judge the merits of challenges to the legitimacy of the U.S. election.

“The justices on Monday declined to take up cases challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the ballot-receipt deadline in last November’s election by three days due to the coronavirus pandemic,” reported Politico.

“The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot,” the ruling said.

As was reported by Kyle Cheney of Politico, the case was denied as “moot.” Meaning, there was no effect from the case.

In dissent was Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito on the matter of hearing the case. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts once again dodged.

“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.”

Justice Thomas was indeed joined by Gorsuch in the opinion to hear the case.

“JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari,” the ruling stated. “I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that we should grant review in these cases. They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, 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.”

More >>