Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case that questioned some Pennsylvania ballots

[AGENT J]

Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case that questioned some Pennsylvania ballots

Three conservative justices on the high court said they would have heard the Pennsylvania election cases, one vote shy of the four needed.

www.usatoday.com

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election.

In a decision that split the court and prompted dissents from three conservative justices, the high court shut down a challenge from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the deadline extension. But even the dissenting justices acknowledged the legal questions in the case would not have affected the outcome of the November election."

Good! another failed court case on claims of voter fraud etc

 

[j brown's body]

Thomas said that just because there is no evidence of fraud doesnt mean that it isn't hidden somewhere. Folks are wondering if Crazy Gini wrote that.

 

[noonereal]

It's a giant conspiracy against TRump. Poor fella.

 

[AGENT J]

Thomas said that just because there is no evidence of fraud doesnt mean that it isn't hidden somewhere. Folks are wondering if Crazy Gini wrote that.

Its just so sad at this point . . . these people are the real-life version of Idiocracy

 

[iguanaman]

Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case that questioned some Pennsylvania ballots

Three conservative justices on the high court said they would have heard the Pennsylvania election cases, one vote shy of the four needed.

www.usatoday.com

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election.

In a decision that split the court and prompted dissents from three conservative justices, the high court shut down a challenge from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the deadline extension. But even the dissenting justices acknowledged the legal questions in the case would not have affected the outcome of the November election."

Good! another failed court case on claims of voter fraud etc

A challenge that would not have changed the results but would have set a terrible precedent that would allow disenfranchising voters who followed the rules of election officials. The suit itself was seditious in nature.

 

[AGENT J]

It's a giant conspiracy against TRump. Poor fella.

you nailed it!!

you got me. its all the Lizard people!! The top secret human amphibians unit in the deep state captured JFK Jr and now its making it even harder for the truth to come out.

 

[AGENT J]

A challenge that would not have changed the results but would have set a terrible precedent that would allow disenfranchising voters who followed the rules of election officials. The suit itself was seditious in nature.

Typical move for corrupt politicians when they are trying to suppress votes

look whats going on around the country . . corrupt politicians desperate to suppress votes

reminds me of when the fear of gays being treated equal was hot and heavy . . corrupt counties and states started making rules and laws and bills trying to suppress rights . . in the end it failed and it was that very corruption that HELPED pave the way for equality and democracy.

 

[Hatuey]

Awwww shiiiit, @AGENT J

Where you been homie?

 

[Common Sense 1]

The majority claim the arguments within the case are “moot”; & the election is over.

 

[JMR]

Supreme Court won't hear 2020 election case that questioned some Pennsylvania ballots

Three conservative justices on the high court said they would have heard the Pennsylvania election cases, one vote shy of the four needed.

www.usatoday.com

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election.

In a decision that split the court and prompted dissents from three conservative justices, the high court shut down a challenge from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the deadline extension. But even the dissenting justices acknowledged the legal questions in the case would not have affected the outcome of the November election."

Good! another failed court case on claims of voter fraud etc

And it seemed such a good plan.....remove all the mail sorters from the post office and don't accept late mail. Foiled by the Supreme Court, some of them anyway.

 

[CaughtInThe]

if you ride with Trump, you need to prepare to lose a LOT of court cases.

 

[MTAtech]

Thomas said that just because there is no evidence of fraud doesnt mean that it isn't hidden somewhere. Folks are wondering if Crazy Gini wrote that.

Just because there is no evidence that birds fly out of my butt, doesn't mean that they don't.

 

[bongsaway]

Thomas said that just because there is no evidence of fraud doesnt mean that it isn't hidden somewhere. Folks are wondering if Crazy Gini wrote that.

Must be hidden really well if over fifty court challenges couldn't find it.

 

[JMR]

Must be hidden really well if over fifty court challenges couldn't find it.

It's like searching for a pubic hair on a coke can....

 

[MamboDervish]

"The Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a dispute over whether absentee ballots received up to three days after Election Day in Pennsylvania should have been counted in the 2020 presidential election.

In a decision that split the court and prompted dissents from three conservative justices, the high court shut down a challenge from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to block a state court ruling that allowed the deadline extension. But even the dissenting justices acknowledged the legal questions in the case would not have affected the outcome of the November election."

Good! another failed court case on claims of voter fraud etc

I've been convinced from the very beginning that voter fraud was rampant. There's no way in hell Trump won North Carolina and Florida.
I know a guy who knows a woman who said she saw a fellow packing Trump ballots in Asheville, and I know another women who met a guy who insists he saw tens-of-thousands of Trump mail-in ballots being unloaded from a van outside Tallahassee.
Biden really should have had 350 EC votes - not 306 !!

WHY ISN'T SOMEBODY INVESTIGATING MY CLAIMS ???

(phew - I'm glad I glad that off my chest!)
(☺)

 

[Athanasius68]

A disappointing decision.
The question was whether a state court can rewrite state election laws for the choosing of electors, considering that the Constitution states that the state legislatures decide how the electors are chosen.

 

[MamboDervish]

It's like searching for a pubic hair on a coke can....

lol - is that the voice of experience talking?

 

[Binary_Digit]

A disappointing decision.
The question was whether a state court can rewrite state election laws for the choosing of electors, considering that the Constitution states that the state legislatures decide how the electors are chosen.

The states didn't rewrite the laws for choosing electors, they rewrote the laws to extend the deadlines for when they would stop accepting mail-in ballots because of anticipated COVID and USPS problems. Several Trump states also extended their deadlines, but of course those Republicans have nothing to say about it.

 

[Lursa]

Did anyone read Thomas' dissent? I did. It was not unreasonable but I didnt like it.

 

[j brown's body]

if you ride with Trump, you need to prepare to lose a LOT of court cases.

Thats why we're seeing so many Republican legislatures hard at work on new laws.

Its like Jim Crow has gone national.

 

[j brown's body]

Did anyone read Thomas' dissent? I did. It was not unreasonable but I didnt like it.

Where he says just because there is no evidence of fraud doesn't mean it isnt hiding somewhere?

 

[Athanasius68]

The states didn't rewrite the laws for choosing electors, they rewrote the laws to extend the deadlines for when they would stop accepting mail-in ballots because of anticipated COVID and USPS problems. Several Trump states also extended their deadlines, but of course those Republicans have nothing to say about it.

The state legislature changed the law for the reasons stated.
The Penna court then changed that.

 

[Lursa]

Where he says just because there is no evidence of fraud doesn't mean it isnt hiding somewhere?

He also said he didnt believe there was any fraud that would have change the results.

 

[JMR]

lol - is that the voice of experience talking?

That's the voice of Clarence Thomas talking.

 

[RAMOSS]

if you ride with Trump, you need to prepare to lose a LOT of court cases.

His previous strategy is to pick on much smaller groups/people, and outlast them via economics. That is a failing proposition against the government, and in politics.