The Supreme Court is the last arbiter of U.S. law and last hope for Americans who are seeking equal justice under the law. WHAT DO WE DO WHEN THEY CHOOSE to not take a case that if left unchecked, will destroy the fabric of America by destroying our voting system and our trust in future elections. If not corrected, we will become Cuba, Venezuela. No law, no trust, no justice.
REP ANDY BIGGS: Justice Clarence Thomas is correct: “These cases provide us w an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, & to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Justice Clarence Thomas is correct:
"These cases provide us w an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, & to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable." https://t.co/tSPB4HlbIM
— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) February 22, 2021
NATIONAL REVIEW SAYS: That’s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania supreme court used the Pennsylvania Constitution’s general guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” as an excuse to invalidate the state legislature’s explicit deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. That deadline was enacted in 2019 and left untouched in revisions to the mail-in ballot rules during the pandemic in 2020. The Court should have heard the case before Election Day, in order t0 ensure that the rules of the road were set in advance. Refusing to hear the case either before the election or after the election guarantees that the issue remains unsettled for the next election.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a dissent blasting the Court for repeatedly ducking this issue (Alito added his own dissent). Normally, federal courts will not hear cases once they are moot, and that would normally be the situation here: Justice Thomas noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Pennsylvania deadline extension changed the result of any federal election. Normally, federal courts will also not hear cases when there is no injury yet or when they are not ripe — that is, nobody has been harmed yet. That was the argument raised by the dissent in a challenge to Minnesota changing its mail-in ballot deadline: We shouldn’t even require ballots to be segregated until we see if it would change the outcome. But that can risk creating a Catch-22: a case is always too early or too late. So, there is an exception to the mootness rule to deal specifically with situations where the ripeness and mootness rules together would make it impossible ever to hear a properly brought case: for an issue that is “capable of repetition, yet evades review.” As Thomas noted, the Court has invoked this rule in election cases before, and should have done so here to avoid repeating the problem:
[The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s] 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. 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. . . . An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.
The U.S. Supreme Court just left in place, for the second time so far, a decision by the Pennsylvania supreme court that threw out part of the election law passed by the lawmakers of Pennsylvania, and substituted instead rules written by judges. The Pennsylvania decision, issued on a party-line vote by the elected Democrats who constitute the Pennsylvania court’s majority, used the open-ended guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” to invalidate the legislature’s deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. Worse, defying basic principles of interpreting statutes, the Pennsylvania court not only rejected the deadline, but disregarded the explicit instruction by the Pennsylvania legislature — in Act 77, a law signed by the state’s Democratic governor in 2019 — that if any part of the carefully crafted bipartisan compromise was invalidated, the entire thing (including its provisions for mail-in voting) had to be invalidated. Basically, the Pennsylvania court ruled that Democrats could keep part of a legislative deal they liked, while disregarding the rest. There was clear evidence, moreover, that the Pennsylvania legislature wanted the deadline to apply even after the COVID pandemic, as a new law was passed this year during the pandemic — and again, signed by Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat — making several accommodations to aspects of the election law in light of the pandemic, but not changing the mail-in deadline. The Pennsylvania court claimed that an extension was needed because of Postal Service delays and experience from the state’s primary in the spring, although the court went out of its way to decide this on a record that ignored evidence compiled in a companion case that demonstrated that no extension was necessary.
Summary: Battleground states changed their laws illegally (without going through their state legislative process) to affect the outcome of the 2020 elections to steal the election from President Trump (who won) and allow Biden to win. The Democrats under Obama and CIA used Hammer and Scorecard TO STEAL THE U.S. ELECTIONS (SOFTWARE: HAMMER AND SCORECARD). Listen to General McInerney here:
General McInerney said that Hammer and Scorecard was also used to listen to Justices, President Trump and others to undermine the elections in 2016 and 2020. This software reallocated Trump’s votes to the Biden column. The Media is also hiding this information from the general public. They are working as agents for Biden. Don’t listen to Politifact and Snopes or any fact checkers. They work for the democrats and Soros. They get paid to lie to the American people.
How Dominion plays a part in the 2020 elections:
Want to learn how laws are made? Follow this link and read further: USA.GOV