BREAKING: Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits


WASHINGTON, D.C. — The US Supreme Court has declined to take up a pair of leftover cases from the 2020 election. The cases involved the authority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to extend the state’s mail-in ballot deadline.

Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch disagreed and said the court should have granted review of the case.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas wrote, “The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4,cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead.” He continued, “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.”

“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. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Thomas concluded.

See the order denying review and Justice Thomas’s dissent here.

Categories: Election

7 replies »

  1. Pingback: Supreme Court WON’T Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits – True News Hub
  2. Pingback: Supreme Court WON’T Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits – The Independent Political Forum
  3. Pingback: Supreme Court WON’T Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits — uTN Aggregator
  4. This is the result of years of corruption in all branches of our government. When judges have lifetime appointments, and politicians serve endless terms, there is the catalyst for corruption. We need term limits on ALL officials, all branches, both elected and appointed, if we are ever to return the control of this country to the hands of the people. To keep it fair and balanced, it should look something like:

    House of Representatives – 3 Term limit
    Senate – 2 Term limit
    Judges – 10 year maximum

    If a House Representative does their job, after 3 terms, they can seek a Senate seat (or vice-versa), then the Presidency, or go back home and return to their life as a taxpaying citizen, working for a living, or possibly seeking a judgeship position if they qualify.

    Judges should serve no more than ten years on each bench (District Court, Supreme Court, etc.).

    If we establish these three limits, we will hinder the potential for long term corruption at the hands of the Joe Bidens, Jerry Nadlers, Nancy Pelosies, Mitch McConnells, and you can fill in the blanks….

  5. It is clear there was fraud from several ways. If the Supreme Court will not handle it then the US government is no longer viable from top to bottom. We cannot be sure the next time we vote it will be accurate and the person that is elected was actually voted in by the people who are legal to vote. Our rights are now gone.

  6. Pingback: Supreme Court WON’T Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits — Underground Truth Network
  7. Pingback: Supreme Court WON'T Hear Pennsylvania Election Lawsuits — Underground Truth Network

Tell the Wiz what you think!