• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Store
  • ION Awards
  • Podcasts
  • Full Measure
    • Full Measure Cover Stories
  • Donate
  • Bestseller "Slanted"

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
    • Omicron Lab Origin
    • Covid-19 Origins
    • Covid-19 Natural Immunity
    • Covid-19 Vaccine Concerns Summary
    • Covid-19 Vaccine: 80 Common Adverse Events
  • The Censored
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Media Mistakes, Biden Era
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Other investigations
      • Benghazi
      • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
      • Election 2020
      • Fake News
      • Fast & Furious
      • Obamacare
      • Obama Surveillance TL
      • Other investigations
      • Ukraine 'Sabotage' of Trump TL

Supreme Court declines to take up Trump Pennsylvania election cases

Dated: February 23, 2021 by Sharyl Attkisson 2 Comments

      

Photo: David Dugan

The Supreme Court of the United States recently declined to consider several cases that challenged a Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision allowing relaxed "ballot-integrity measures." That includes extending the deadline for ballots by three days, shortly before the November 3rd presidential election.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissent to the decision:

These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address
just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election
rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.
The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, different
officials dispute who has authority to set or change
those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because
voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse,
with more than one system of rules in place, competing candidates
might each declare victory under different sets of
rules.

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the
rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule
changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even
worse. When those changes alter election results, they can
severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the
authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If
not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the
consequences become catastrophic.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissent, 2/22/21

Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined Justice Thomas in the dissent.

Click here to read Justice Thomas' full dissent


      
[the_ad id="17661"]

About Sharyl Attkisson

Emmy-Award Winning Investigative Journalist, New York Times Best Selling Author, Host of Sinclair's Full Measure

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Dr John Wells says

    March 4, 2021 at 11:58 am

    We obviously have only 3 Supreme Court Justices that care one whit about their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. To have a majority ruling go against our desires would be disappointing. To have more than half the Court say "nothing to see here" is truly appalling.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

The Bad Shirts: High-Quality, Wearable Humor

The Sharyl Attkisson Store

Buy Great, Original Products & Support Independent Journalism

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

SUBSCRIBE TO SHARYL’S RUMBLE CHANNEL


Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube



Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

Sitemap

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Newsletter
  • Returns & Refunds Policy

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Election 2020
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Copyright © 2023 ยท Log in