SCOTUS, in a long string of abuses against the American people, refusing to address historical violations in numerous state’s constitutional laws to change voting law right before the 2020 Presidential election, has refused again to hear the merits of election cases.

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution” – Clarence Thomas, who dissented. 

The lawsuit to hear about ballots unconstitutionally accepted after the Election Day deadline was rejected as “moot.”

“The justices on Monday declined to take up cases challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the ballot-receipt deadline in last November’s election by three days due to the coronavirus pandemic,” reported Politico.

In dissent were Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito on the matter of hearing the case.


The highly anticipated Trump-appointed justices turned judicial activists for the Marxist left: Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh dodged. The liberal disappointment Chief Justice Roberts once again refused to make his job rule on an important legal matter.

The most steady conservative over decades of service was Justice Clarence Thomas, an American hero.

His dissent was firey.


Elections are “of the most fundamental significance under our constitutional structure.” Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.”

“Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue warranted certiorari, but there also was no question that petitioners faced irreparable harm.  Petitioners further established a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to regulate federal elections. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892).

Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”  But by that time, election day was just over a week away. So we denied
the motion to expedite even though the question was of “national importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.”

Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, ante, at 3 (statement of ALITO, J.).
Now that the petitions are before us under the normal briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them. Indeed, the day after we denied the petitioner’s motion to expedite in No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review.


This divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify certiorari in almost any case. That these cases concern federal elections only further heightens the need for review.

“Justice Thomas shared the truth today when he wrote, “By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” one Twitter poster reported.