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

I know one jury held in favor of Trump and the 9th Circuit overruled the verdict and District Court on appeal.

It was gutless plain and simple. The Court will have to fix the precedent regarding the exception to mootness, and eventually decide the next case with a similar separation of powers issue in an election.

 

That's because Rudy has no facts. Conspiracy theories are not subject to review.

Allegations have indeed been disproven. You should read the defendants responses. It's all there. The other allegations lacked factual evidence. This is really simple stuff here.

 

A jury already ruled in their favor after hearing the facts, and it was sustained on appeal until the 9th circuit struck it on a technicality.

Election fraud in 2020 is an evidence-based theory. Only uneducated CNN zombies that support genocide in China actually believe it's a conspiracy.

 

That's a real head scratcher.

Is Carone one of those zombies? Lindell? Tooty Fruity Rudy? Thank god sanity prevailed. I do understand your need to hold dear.

And what is this jury you speak of?

 

I'll make it easy for you:

If you say I was somewhere last night, and I prove I was somewhere else, you lose. It doesn't matter how many people you pay to sign affidavits.

The claims were easily disproven. Let's get real here.

A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit' (msn.com)

 

How many illegals voted in Arizona? How many votes did Trump lose by in Arizona? What happened in Antrim Michigan? These are simple little tips of the iceberg. The election was fraudulent and covid has been a hoax. It is just now conveniently coming to an end. How many people do you know under 70 who have died of covid? This country is under occupation.

 

Sometimes the most conspiratorial reasoning can lead us to the right conclusion. You really don't believe that right?

 

"The judiciary is a reliable ally of the Gentry Class."

​

 

LOL, did you read this after you wrote it? Piles and piles of non sequiturs.

 

That's nice. To go along with piles and piles of court humiliations, recounts, signature verifications, more recounts, attempted corruption of state officials and insurrection.

That those mean nothing to Trump supporters is not my problem.

 

Got nothing but jabberwocky, eh?

 

Just reality. You can keep the whacked.

 

wasn't talking about the PA case. Meanwhile, we know beyond all rational doubt, that the election was not rigged.

 

I'm not a big fan of Justice Thomas, but over the years he has made some very good points.

Through the history of this country, dissenting opinions have usually been the right opinions, supported by the spirit and letter of the law. Mr. Justice Brandeis is the best example of the rightness of dissenting opinions over many cases. Olmstead dissenting opinions were the most inspirational for me.

Here Mr. Justice Thomas hits the nail on the head. That it had to be a dissenting opinion shows how corrupt the rest of the court is.

 

An interesting point.

Considering that 1/3rd of The Current S.Court was appointed by the Career Criminal Donald Trump (A Dishonorable Career Grifter who is as Corrupt as it gets), it would seem very possible that his appointees could also be "Corrupt".

^Of course, on that point, the Jury is Still Out (to coin a phrase).

In any event, you may be onto something.
Thanks for pointing that out.

Anyway, back to the specific decision in the OP, the case was correctly decided and Thomas's dissent was ludicrous.

 

Dissenters are more often than not correct. That fact is not limited to SCOTUS decisions.

 

What nonsense. States decide how to run their own elections. As long as they don't infringe on rights they are good.

 

There are many facts, a boatload of facts, showing manipulation of the voting process.

By its actions, as noted in the dissent by Thomas, the court is complicit in coverup. It failed to even examine the facts, meaning it failed to even attempt to deliver justice.

It enabled fraud by way of legal sophistry.

 

You may be correct. I wonder if we will see similar problems in future elections since this question seems unsettled for some. Only time will tell.

 

States cannot violate the Constitution in running their elections, Governors and state legislatures cannot violate their state constitutions, what's so difficult to understand about that. You haven't even read the dissents obviously. Where does the Constitution state that during an election for a federal office the Governor and local courts control the elections and set the rules and can change those rules on their own?

From Justice Thomas's descent

"[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....

...We may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result. A different petition argues that after election day the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nullified the legislative requirement that voters write the date on mail-in ballots. . . . According to public reports, one candidate for a state senate seat claimed victory under what she contended was the legislative rule that dates must be included on the ballots. A federal court noted that this candidate would win by 93 votes under that rule. . . . A second candidate claimed victory under the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He was seated. That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse...."


....One wonders what this Court waits for. 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. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.

Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent."

As Justice Alito wrote

"As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote late last year, “[t]he Constitution provides that state legislatures—not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials—bear primary responsibility for setting election rules … [a]nd the Constitution provides a second layer of protection, too. If state rules need revision, Congress is free to alter them.”