Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Its interesting to watch people who think they won misinterpret Thomas's dissent because they think it would subtract from their win.

We'll see what they think about his opinion after their first loss.

 

These are the words the present day "winners" will chew on the day after their catastrophic loss due to the manipulation of rules.

 

I had to read that three times before I got your drift.... "Requiring early voting" = "Requiring states to allow early voting"...

I'd love nothing more than binding common sense federal rules on all federal elections.... I find the idea that 50 states have 50 different rules while trying to determine the same outcome obsolete...

State legislatures setting their own voting rules may have made sense in the 1790's, when there was little possibility of standardization, but it no longer does...

 

I have posted a number of times the reason SCOTUS didn't hear the case. I agree, Thomas was correct. Without telegraphing how he would have ruled he correctly said that this is a case of magnitude and national significance (which is why most of the justices refused to hear it) -- it materially determines what kind of elections will take place in the future -- which is the primary obligation of SCOTUS to hear. The PA supreme case is (was) open and shut. The Constitution is explicitly clear that only the legislature can set the voting process and procedures. However, I agree, much to my, Thomas', and millions of others chagrin, we won't know.

 

The issue was not state law but explicit Constitutional law.

 

Only a fool believes that using that court to impose partisan bullshyte could possibly turn out well. You guys REALLY need to sober up. Your media has so thoroughly indoctrinated you that you're beginning to believe you actually can dominate half the nation against our will. Hell, a few of you have no problem with sending in troops to crush dissenters.

 

The justices disagreed

 

No they did not. What did they say that makes you claim that?

 

That court's refusal to clarify the Constitutional issue in dispute could be the last straw for this old camel. Now the Left are openly attempting to craft laws to codify their fraud. I guess they actually believe they can pull it off while ignoring the other half of the nation. I guess the TDS has morphed into a true pathology. Oh well...

 

We don’t think — we know.

If you were “half the nation” Biden wouldn’t be your president. Pelosi wouldn’t be your Speaker and Schumer wouldn’t be your Senate Leader.

Unless you are saying all of these people have stolen the nation from you, in that case I would call anyone saying that to be traitors to their nation for typing furiously on their keyboard instead of doing anything.

 

So depressingly true.

 

I think you mean half the votes.

 

I think you're making baseless claims of there being no basis for the Trump claims of fraud, and I suspect Justice Thomas thinks the same way. But of course, Pennsylvania is just the tip of the iceberg, and even the tip of an iceberg was enough to sink the Titanic.

 

What fraud?

 

Problem is we know trumps claims of fraud were baseless, as every single investigation, from trumps DHS, trumps DOJ, trumps attorney general, all 50 state election commissions, Republican Secretaries of State, Republican governors, every single court this has been in front of (61) Republican appointed judges; trump appointed judges and all 9 Supreme Court justices have shown you.

 

That has nothing to do with nor did the legal issue here with fraud. It has to do with government officials and judges unconstitutionally changing the rules of the elections and laws passed by the state legislatures.

 

The states have to follow the Constitution and then the lower officials and the judges must abide by the rules of the election set by the state legislature. Only the state legislature can change rules of the elections when a President, VP or member of Congress is on the ballot and most if not all state constitutions give that plenary power to the state legislature for lower elections. This lawsuit is about local and state officials and judges changing those rules on their own. Thomas and the other other dissenting opinions are absolutely correct and as I have been saying since last summer the SCOTUS needs to take a case and make a DEFINITIVE ruling on the matter. I should say ANOTHER definitive ruling since that is exactly what they ruled in Bush v Gore. That the FSC did not have the constitutional authority to do what they did usurping the state legislature and the Secretary of State.

 

This is NOT about reinstalling Trump, this is about a basic constitutional issue and the SCOTUS punted on it.

 

If you think that all 9 Supreme Court Justices have sided against Trump in a thread about 1 of the 9 justices dissenting with the majority, then I don't know how you walk through life without a helmet.

 

Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch are right. They should have heard several of these cases.

Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement?

 

The people defending the shitty union and the low expectations set for teachers, prove my point about education with their inability to quickly find the important legal issues and laws that bring this case into the purview of federal jurisdication. The Alito dissent is a cogent argument about state officials violating separation of powers under article 1, section 4, clause 1 when the executive or judicial branch violates its own state constitution in a Federal election matter. The court decided to wimp out cause there are plenty of cases in which similar actions were taken by different branches of government overstepped their powers in regards to important federal issues.

The majority has wrongly justified their decision by calling the issue moot despite the facts fulfilling the exception to mootness dubbed "repetition yet evading review". As Thomas expresses, "This exception to mootness, which the Court routinely invokes in election cases, 'applies where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.' Before the exception was created, courts would continuously nerf abortion and environmental cases, because the baby was already born and woods were demolished. The latter allowed business owners to wipe their asses with injunctions.

 

They denied hearing a VERY important CONSTITUTIONAL matter which now remains a VERY important CONSTITUTIONAL matter. They punted. And now it will repeat as an issue in future elections.

 

And so next election cycle judges and local officials can change the rules, the lower court can change the rules and any litigation will be delayed until after the election and then it will be moot because the election already happened. What utter folly and what a dangerous precedent, that if an unconstitutional act has already occurred then the court has no interest.

 

Basically. I have more respect for the Bush v. Gore decision, because at least they took a shot at the issue. It doesn't even matter the election can't be overturned.

 

Most of the allegations have never been given a factual review, nor disproven. The fact that a bunch of gutless wonders in black robes failed to change that as Justice Thomas correctly points out.