Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit


SCOTUS Affirms: In Pennsylvania The Democrat Controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court Makes Election Law Not The Legislature As Prescribed In The U.S. Constitution


Toomey: PA Supreme Court “Went Rogue,” Decided To Violate …

“In Pennsylvania, unfortunately, it’s been a little bit complicated by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court that went rogue and decided to violate the U.S. constitution, ignore Pennsylvania law, and just rewrite the law themselves. They have no authority to do that. And they extended the period of time over which ballots can arrive beyond the deadline. That’s outrageous, frankly.” the uber-moderate Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)


1. The rogue PA Supreme Court is the most detestable court in the land.  The Democrat majority doesn’t even pretend to sit as justices.

2. They’re political hacks in black robes who have destroyed PA’s election system, unconstitutionally seized power from the state legislature, and sits as a Democrat-Party politburo. Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow


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.

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.”

‘Inexplicable’: Alito and Thomas Dissent as Supreme Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

By Tyler O’Neil Feb 22, 2021 10:58 AM ET

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.”

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.”

Article


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s