Tags: 2020 Elections | Supreme Court | clarence thomas | election law | scotus | voter fraud

Justice Thomas Blisters Court on Rejecting Election Cases

clarence thomas sits for photo
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for the official group photo at the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C on November 30, 2018. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

By    |   Monday, 22 February 2021 11:47 AM

After the Supreme Court turned away two Republican appeals over Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot deadline changes, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent against the decision to reject the case.

"One wonders what this Court waits for," Justice Thomas wrote. "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."

Three conservative Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch sought to hear the cases, while Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices in turning then away. Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take part on cases that preceded her swearing in.

"By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence," Justice Thomas' dissent concluded. "Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more from us.

"I respectfully dissent."

The rebuff leaves intact a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that allowed three extra days for ballots to arrive in November because of the pandemic and anticipated mail delays. Republicans said the ruling usurped the power of the state legislature in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Republicans filed the appeals in October before the election. The Supreme Court declined to intervene before the Nov. 3 election, eventually won by Democrat Joe Biden, but three conservative justices indicated at the time they thought the state court had overstepped.

The court's three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan – have backed the power of both state and federal judges to ease voting restrictions, particularly during the pandemic.

"The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election," Justice Alito wrote in his dissent.

Information from Bloomberg was used in this report.

© 2021 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Politics
After the Supreme Court turned away two Republican appeals over Pennsylvania's mail-in ballot deadline changes, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas issued a blistering dissent against the decision to reject the case...
clarence thomas, election law, scotus, voter fraud
346
2021-47-22
Monday, 22 February 2021 11:47 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved