WeLoveTrump.com may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

“Baffling” SCOTUS Decision Slammed by Justice Thomas in Must-Read Dissent Opinion

"The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling."


24,402 views

THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com

The Supreme Court has once again denied one of President Trump’s election challenges.

This time, they ruled against hearing his challenge of Pennsylvania’s election results.

The truth will never be widespread as long as they continually refuse to even hear the evidence.

After this nefarious ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing dissent where he called the SCOTUS decision “baffling,” and called out the failure of the court to provide clarity for the American people. 

Thomas wrote:

“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.”

NATIONAL POLL: Do You Still Have Trump's Back 100%?

“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion, and erosion of voter confidence.”

Justice Thomas closed his dissent letter by saying that “Our fellow citizens deserve better.”

Forbes has more on the Supreme Court's ruling, as well as Justice Thomas's reaction:

The Supreme Court had been weighing a challenge to Pennsylvania allowing mail-in ballots to be counted if they arrive after Election Day, which led to those ballots being segregated and treated differently during the presidential election—though there were not enough late-arriving ballots to have affected the outcome.

The court ultimately declined to review the case Monday, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.

Two Trump campaign lawsuits against Pennsylvania’s and Wisconsin’s elections were also thrown out, as well as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Penn.)’s attempt to challenge Pennsylvania’s election.

The court also rejected Powell’s “Kracken” case alleging widespread fraud in Michigan, after the far-right attorney and her allies had touted the Supreme Court considering the case as a signal that her post-election lawsuits still had a chance of success.

Far-right attorney Lin Wood’s challenge to Georgia’s election results was also denied, as well as Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward’s challenge of that state’s election.

The court had already declined to hear many of the lawsuits denied Monday on an expedited basis before Inauguration Day, which killed the cases’ chances of having any impact on the election outcome.

CHIEF CRITIC
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” Thomas wrote in his dissent on the Pennsylvania mail-in voting deadline case. “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

Here's more on the baffling SCOTUS decision from CBS:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a pair of legal challenges to Pennsylvania's election rules mounted by former President Donald Trump's GOP allies, closing the book on Mr. Trump's efforts to contest the outcome of the presidential election.

The court rejected the cases as moot, as President Biden has been sworn in as the nation's 46th president and Mr. Trump is no longer in office. In addition to declining to take up the two cases involving Pennsylvania's deadline for mail-in ballots, the Supreme Court also rejected election-related disputes from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin with no noted dissents.

Republicans appealed a ruling from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that extended the deadline for mail-in ballots to be counted if they are received up to three days after the election. In turning away the cases, the state high court's ruling remains intact. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said they would have heard the cases.

In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court has the opportunity to address the issue of "nonlegislative officials" changing election rules well before the next election and called the court's refusal to hear the disputes "befuddling."

"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 wrote. "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."



We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend