'Inexplicable' for high court to pass up PA ballot lawsuit

Wednesday, February 24, 2021
Chad Groening, Billy Davis (OneNewsNow.com)

'I Voted' stickerLikely reflecting the views of millions, a veteran of conservative politics says the integrity of future elections is in doubt after the nation’s highest court refused to review even a mild election challenge in Pennsylvania.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it will not take several election fraud challenges in five states ---Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin --- but three of the justices said they wanted to hear the Pennsylvania challenge pertaining to the state's mail in-ballot controversy. The issue split state legislators and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court over a state law that mandated a Nov. 3 deadline for absentee votes.

Democrats have relentlessly mocked allegations of fraud as “unfounded” conspiracy theories but post-election polls showed as many as three-fourths of Republicans surveyed insisted that Trump won and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president.

“This election was not stolen,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos told Sen. Rand Paul, mirroring the divided nation, in a tense January interview. “Do you accept that fact?”

“What I would say is that the debate over whether or not there was fraud should occur,” Paul replied. “We never had a presentation in court where we actually looked at the evidence. Most of the cases were thrown out for lack of standing, which is a procedural way of not actually hearing the question.”

Symbolizing the ongoing rift, Sen. Paul went on describe what he called legitimate issues such as dead people voting, people voting more than once, and illegal aliens who voted. Tens of thousands of mail-in votes were allowed in Wisconsin without an address, he said, despite a state law that mandates it to be counted legally.

Stephanopoulos, however, mocked Trump voters for believing the “big lie” about fraud and suggested there was no evidence of “widespread” fraud.

Among other jaw-dropping allegations, the challenge from Pennsylvania seemed a rather mild case for the court to consider compared to claims of manipulated voting machines, and people voting from other states and from the grave as Sen. Paul alleged.  

Among those who expected the Supreme Court to review the Pennsylvania case is Tom Zawistowski, an Ohio-based tea party leader who now tells One News Now the justices voted to leave the issue of election integrity untouched.

Justice Clarence Thomas (no robe)“In effect, they are leaving it open now going forward for all kinds of people to change election rules willy-nilly however they want,” he says. “And that's just not going to result in fair, open, honest, and transparent elections. It's a betrayal of the Constitution itself."

Among the dissenting justices, Clarence Thomas (pictured at left) warned his colleagues they had passed up an “ideal opportunity” to address at least one election-related issue, the Pennsylvania case, before the next election cycle.

“The refusal to do so,” he wrote, “is inexplicable.”

Along with Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch stated they wanted to hear the Pennsylvania case, and the court needed only one more justice to do so.   

In a similar dissent, Justice Alito suggested a court ruling would not affect the 2020 elections but it would have provided “invaluable guidance for future elections.”

Reminder: Justices were threatened 

So why would other justices refuse to become the fourth vote? 

"They were intimated by [Sen.] Chuck Schumer being on the steps of the Supreme Court," Zawistowski says, "and shouting at them that we'll get you and you'll get yours."

Chief Justice John Roberts"You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," the liberal Democrat blatantly threatened pro-life justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in March, when the court was hearing an abortion case.

He went on to further predict the two justices "won't know what hit" them if they voted against abortion. 

A similar theory about the conservative justices is that they fear Democrats will add more court seats, as they have promised to do, which is why the public is watching much-touted constitutional justices let them down. 

"[I suspect] Justice [John] Roberts (pictured above) and others on that court are really afraid that the Democrats are going to expand the court and they will lose their power," AFR radio host Sandy Rios told her audience a day after the court's ruling and the three justices' dissent. 


Comments will be temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we restore this service!

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




Neither Pres. Biden nor VP Harris is publicly acknowledging the worsening border crisis because:





Police: Minnesota officer meant to draw Taser, not handgun
  Police report multiple victims in Tennessee school shooting
Judge refuses to sequester jury in George Floyd case
DeSantis attacks YouTube for yanking his pandemic video
US colleges divided over requiring student vaccinations
Iran blames Israel for sabotage at Natanz nuclear site


A nation primed to see racism in everything will think only about race
Forced masking is behavioral science, not medical, and they’ve been playing us the whole time
Fixing racism by being racist?
The liberal race to vaccinate
CA teacher caught berating students in leaked Zoom over push for in-person learning, 'Come at me'


Cartoon of the Day
FIRE adding to its faculty-assistance arsenal

YAF free speech signA nonpartisan organization that defends the rights of students and faculty on America's college campuses is expanding its mission to include free legal representation for faculty whose free-speech rights it says are increasingly being violated.