But to Ricter's point, would you accept the ruling if the SCOTUS heard the case and then ruled that there was no sufficient evidence? Or would you then say the court was corrupt because it did not rule the way you believe/want it to?
Justice Clarence Thomas Dissents From Supreme Court On Election Case: ‘We Need to Make It Clear’
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
But to Ricter's point, would you accept the ruling if the SCOTUS heard the case and then ruled that there was no sufficient evidence? Or would you then say the court was corrupt because it did not rule the way you believe/want it to?
Could go either way. But from what I read, the irregularities were "extreme"... such that it is highly likely the election was stolen... and by a large margin. Still, no excuse for them to "pass". They fell down on the job and have earned my contempt as a patriot! (Except for Thomas, of course.)
Last edited:
I do not believe this. How many lower courts have already thrown out, what, over 60 cases? The fact they are being thrown out becomes evidence of the conspiracy itself. You can't win against this stuff, it's like negotiating with terrorists.
So tens of millions of people are now comparable to terrorists because they don't believe in your side of the story?
The campaign to create FUD re the election, which originated with Trump, is terrorism.
Ok, I don't know that I agree at all with that, but lets go with it for the sake of your argument.
This doesn't mean you don't have the court listen to the concern of tens of millions of the country's citizens. If anything, you should WANT the opportunity to clearly denounce the bullshit once and for all.
I agree with your sentiment, it's what used to work.
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
Problem is... it is not up to the Supreme Court to set up clear rules for future elections.... this case was about a fraud and they decided there was no fraud. They cannot take the case and say, we see no fraud but let us lay down the rules for how future elections should be handled and put our input on it.
SC.... stay in your lane.
I find it funny that a conservative judge who is usually against judicial activism wants to now get involved in election process and rules which is so NOT the purview of the SC.
There is a lot of proof of massive election fraud. Pretty hard to prove when they are suppressing all the evidence. What are they afraid of if election fraud did not happen in a massive way? The fastest way to debunk it is allow evidence to be provided to settle on who is telling the truth. The fact that they are going thru extreme lengths to suppress evidence tells me the fraud is massive. If they had to actually, audit the votes in those 6 states, numerous instances of election fraud can be proven then, what do they do? Ask usurper, Joe Biden to step down?