The Supreme Court just made a major voter fraud ruling that no one could believe

Republicans alleging states violated election laws finally had their day in court.

Trump supporters waited months to make their case.

And the Supreme Court just made a major voter fraud ruling that no one could believe.

The Supreme Court refused to hear a pair of legal challenges brought by Republicans to Pennsylvania changing election law to allow mail-in ballots to count if they arrived up to three days after the election.

Three conservative jurists – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito – dissented.

Thomas argued the court needed to hear this case to set “clear rules” for elections that all Americans can believe in and follow.

“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,” Thomas argued. “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.”

Justice Alito echoed that argument saying this case would not have changed the outcome of the 2020 election, but it would have the effect of increasing confidence in future elections.

“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” Alito stated. “But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”

Election integrity is a major focus of Republicans at the state level.

In Florida and Georgia, Republicans introduced reforms to ensure the security of the vote.

But many Americans were hoping the Supreme Court would hand down clear rules of the road that will stop partisan judges and state officials from usurping the power of the legislature and changing voting laws on a whim.

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch argue that any modifications to election practices must come from the legislature and by not taking up this case the Supreme Court is contributing to the perception among voters that officials and judges are illegally toying around with election laws to achieve partisan ends.

You may also like...

%d bloggers like this: