Supreme Court rejects election fraud lawsuits

“This procedure has to come to an end before it leads to disaster”

The US Supreme Court dismissed all pending election fraud lawsuits on Monday without giving a reason. In his dissenting opinion, Judge Clarence Thomas complained that the decision was “not a recipe for more trust.”

Foto: The White House, Public domain

Released: 02/23/2021 – 11:20 am

from Editorial office (to)

The Supreme Court will not deal with the still open allegations of election fraud on November 3rd. and then deal. Amongst other things the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit by Pennsylvania MP Mike Kelly that universal postal voting in Pennsylvania was against the constitution; and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania lawsuit against Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar that stated that electoral officials had no right to post a postal vote without consulting parliament to extend beyond election day.

On November 6th Judge Colonel Samuel Alito had accepted the Republicans’ request and instructed Pennsylvania election officials to separate late postal votes. On February 22nd Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion with Chief Justice Neil Gorsuch that the case was “an important and recurring case”: whoever has priority in organizing the elections, the Constitution or the electoral authorities. “This question has been assessed differently by the lower courts, a clarification at this point would have been advantageous.”

The Supreme Court also dismissed lawsuits from lawyers Sidney Powell of Michigan and Lin Wood of Georgia, as well as Arizona Republican chairman Kelli Ward and the Trump campaign from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Judge Clarence Thomas expressed his disappointment in his dissenting opinion: “We failed to clarify these issues and set clear rules before the election, and we will continue to do so in the future.”

See Also:  Will it affect the opening of 4.1? Arizona Group Submits Document Requesting Postponement of Camp Start | Full-Count

“Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough,” wrote Thomas. “If they are changed by officials who may not be authorized to do so, it is worse. If these changes potentially change the outcome of the election, they can damage the electoral system on which our democracy is based. If civil servants have that authority, we need to make that clear. If not, we have to put an end to this procedure before it leads to disaster. “

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.