Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: ‘We Need to Make It Clear’

[Tsing Tao]

I think this is the right stance to take. The issue isn't about whether the election was stolen or cheated or whatever. It was about allowing the conversation to be had. If you don't have the conversation, you cannot restore confidence. Thomas is 100% correct. All you do is make those who believe there were anomalies believe they are right because you won't allow their voice to be heard.

If we were talking about a very small sliver of people who felt this way, you could dismiss it as fringe and say "we don't send every crazy theory to the SCOTUS". But so many people believe something happened that you have to provide a forum.

Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: ‘We Need to Make It Clear’

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion regarding the high court’s decision not to take up a case challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results.

The court on Monday announced it won’t take up lawsuits challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that relaxed ballot-integrity measures, including a move to extend the ballot-receipt deadline during the November election by three days due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania’s GOP urged the court to take up a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

“This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas wrote on Monday, adding that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.” Thomas, considered by many to be the most conservative justice, said the court should have granted a review.


“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 wrote (pdf). “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.”- READ MORE

 

[smallfil]

There is actually an effort to suppress the evidence with extreme liberal judges and even judges of the US Supreme Court refusing to allow plaintiffs to provide evidence. Like going to jury duty and the judge tells the jurors, you can accept evidence provided by the defense. Prosecution is not allowed to present any evidence. Something that one only expects from a kangaroo court in a third world country. We have reached the ultimate low when judges refuse to even uphold the US constitution. I do not think massive election fraud should be tolerated by any judges, no matter your political persuasion. These judges need to all resign and allow other qualified judges to take over if they cannot do their jobs because of their obvious bias.

 

[Tsing Tao]

There is actually an effort to suppress the evidence with extreme liberal judges and even judges of the US Supreme Court refusing to allow plaintiffs to provide evidence. Like going to jury duty and the judge tells the jurors, you can accept evidence provided by the defense. Prosecution is not allowed to present any evidence. Something that one only expects from a kangaroo court in a third world country. We have reached the ultimate low when judges refuse to even uphold the US constitution. I do not think massive election fraud should be tolerated by any judges, no matter your political persuasion. These judges need to all resign and allow other qualified judges to take over if they cannot do their jobs because of their obvious bias.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. But You have to first prove massive election fraud. This isn't proven.

But because so many people believe something weird might have gone down, you need to provide a forum for the aggrieved. If you don't, you risk others like me (who don't believe the election was stolen) going "wait a second, what are you afraid of in giving them their day in court?"

 

[notagain]

The FBI will straighten it all out

 

[Buy1Sell2]

But You have to first prove massive election fraud. This isn't proven.

Because it hasn't been allowed to be heard. Trump lost by only about 35k votes. I think we should hear the evidence.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Because it hasn't been allowed to be heard. Trump lost by only about 35k votes. I think we should hear the evidence.

Which is essentially what I said.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Which is essentially what I said.

We've been saying that since Nov 3, but Leftists want to suppress.

 

[Ricter]

"Opinions on the shape of the Earth differ."

It would make no difference if scotus had taken the case, their final opinion would not be believed, precisely because, as you said, "so many people believe". That's the problem with a large disinformation campaign getting traction, it creates the very FUD it needs to grow.

 

[Tsing Tao]

"Opinions on the shape of the Earth differ."

It would make no difference if scotus had taken the case, their final opinion would not be believed, precisely because, as you said, "so many people believe". That's the problem with a large disinformation campaign getting traction, it creates the very FUD it needs to grow.

This depends on what slice of population you're referring to. There will always be people who believe the election was stolen. Right on this very forum we can find some.

But having the highest court in the land deny listening to it when millions - that's not an exaggerated number by the way - millions of people think something odd happened and the case should have its day in court, is not the best way to go on with democracy and assuring the legitimacy of the election process.

Thomas is spot on. It should be heard, evidence should be presented, and if the evidence isn't satisfactory (like it hasn't been in any of the previous courts) it should be dismissed. If anything having a conservative leaning SCOTUS rule in favor of the election would go a long way towards quieting the larger portion of the people questioning the issue.

 

[Scataphagos]

I'm playing devil's advocate here. But You have to first prove massive election fraud. This isn't proven.

But because so many people believe something weird might have gone down, you need to provide a forum for the aggrieved. If you don't, you risk others like me (who don't believe the election was stolen) going "wait a second, what are you afraid of in giving them their day in court?"

Ditto... from one who believes the election was LIKELY stolen!

There were LOTS of reported "irregularities".... egregious ones! These should have been "looked into".

Dick Morris says he believes the SCOTUS was intimidated by the Left into "chickening-out" on hearing the evidence. (If SCOTUS can be intimidated, what the hell good is it? They were to be the final arbiter of right and wrong in the law! Now it seems they have morphed into just a bunch of cowering PUSSIES!)