Supreme Court Denies Hearings in Election Fraud Cases

Headlines Politics U.S.
Mike Dakkak9 Comments on Supreme Court Denies Hearings in Election Fraud Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied hearings in all of the remaining election fraud cases that were before it. The Court found the petition for President Trump to intervene in the cases “moot,” presumably now that the election was over and otherwise denied motions that the cases be heard.

The suits, four in all, relate to Pennsylvania state election regulations. They were brought by President Trump, U.S. Congressman Mike Kelly (R-PA), a group of Pennsylvania state legislators, and the Pennsylvania GOP respectively.

All four challenged the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change state regulations surrounding mail-in ballots in the weeks before the election.

Petitions for a writ of certiorari, or request of review by the Supreme Court, were denied in the cases. Requests to file amicus briefs, or briefs by interested parties in support of the plaintiffs’ cases, filed by a group of 28 current members of the House of Representatives, the Honest Elections Project, and the White House Watch Fund respectively, were granted.

Of the four cases the Court decided on today, two were denied with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. The other two were denied unanimously with no dissents. Conservative Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the liberal justices in denying all requests.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just weeks before the November election ruled the deadline for submitting mail-in ballots could be extended three days without approval from the state’s legislature. They also allowed for those mail-in ballots to be counted even in the absence of evidence that they were postmarked by election day, the deadline for ballots being mailed.

Those decisions were in direct contradiction to the Pennsylvania State Legislature who, in response to Covid19, amended state election laws but decided not to extend the deadline further.

The Pennsylvania GOP asked the U.S. Supreme Court for emergency relief against the state Supreme Court’s decision last fall. That application was denied. The PA GOP then filed the petition the Court decided on today, but asked that it be expedited so that the issue could be resolved before Election Day on Nov 3. That motion to expedite was denied at the time because it was deemed to be too close to the election.

Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh voted to grant the expedited application. Barrett, along with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer voted against it.

It is unclear why Justice Kavanaugh voted to grant the expedited application in October – a signal that as Justice Thomas wrote today “made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail” – but made a final decision against the petition today.

The petitions were rendered “moot” by the Court today. A decision Rep. Kelly called “astounding.”

“It is astounding that our nation’s highest court was unwilling to hear arguments in a case that called on the Court to require states to follow their own constitutions in the conduct of federal elections,” he wrote in a statement.

“Act 77 expressly violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and the only court to consider the merits acknowledged the strength of our argument and said we were likely to succeed,” he added referring to the broader law that made mail-in voting available to all Pennsylvania voters. “I call on the governor and the General Assembly to do the right thing by repealing the no-excuse mail-in voting system, starting the constitutional amendment process, and letting Pennsylvania voters decide the issue.”

Those sentiments were echoed by Attorney David Carroll of Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer LLC.

“The Constitution of the United States specifically gives the right to make rules for federal elections to the state legislatures.  Not to state courts, not to state election officials.  Not to anyone else. Just to state legislatures. This is an important legal issue. We wish that the Supreme Court had decided it rather than leaving it to a later court,” Carroll told ITN this afternoon.

Mr. Carroll filed the amicus brief with the Court on behalf of the White House Watch Fund.

Asked why he believed the Supreme Court would grant the requests to file amicus briefs while refusing to hear the case(s), Mr. Carroll was at a loss. He was sure, however, that the issues raised this time around would undoubtedly come up again.

“We do not know why the Supreme Court granted our motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief on the same day that it denied the petition. We see it as a compliment to us. Perhaps the dissenting justices were moved by the arguments we presented in our brief. There is no way of us knowing. What we do know is the case is over until the issue comes up. Inevitably. Another day,” he said.

By declaring it too late to hear election fraud cases before elections but dismissing them as moot after them, the Court leaves the question of the proper timetable for such proceedings unanswered. A point Justice Thomas addresses in his dissent.

“Our refusal to [hear] these cases is befuddling…Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails,” he wrote.

In December the Supreme Court denied a motion by Rep. Kelly to block Pennsylvania from certifying its election results in favor of Joe Biden. There were no recorded dissents in that decision.

Also in December the Court decided to not hear a case brought by the state of Texas against four battleground states alleging massive fraud during the Nov. 3 election. At the time the case was joined by every state in the nation (both for the plaintiff and the defendants) save four.

In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court found Texas did not have standing in bringing the suit against the other states. Shortly after, reports surfaced that Justice Roberts was afraid any decision by the Court to refuse to let election fraud stand would be met with rioting.

Only four justices are required to vote yes to give cases a full hearing at the Supreme Court. Something many social media users pointed out after the decision was announced.

9 thoughts on “Supreme Court Denies Hearings in Election Fraud Cases”

  1. So first, SCOTUS declined to take on the case, not due to lack of evidence, but in fear of a public reaction – tell that to the judges in CA who oversaw the Rodney King trial and the OJ Simpson trial. Now, they are declining to do their job because, as predicted by President Trump, the deal is done. Sad, sad day for democracy and for justice.

    Reply

  2. The Twitter post says that the Supreme Court denied motions by Donald J. Trump, Inc. and Thomas J. Randolph et al to intervene as petitioner and respondents in the two Pennsylvania cases. The Court did grant petititions by two watchdog groups to file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs, indicating that the cases very well may be heard. The statement, “the petitions for writ of certiorari are denied” MAY refer to writs filed by Donald J. Trump, Inc. and Thomas Randolph et al to be heard on their petitions to intervene.

    Reply

    1. The petitions for writs of certiorari that were denied referred to the following: “JAKE CORMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, MIDDLE DISTRICT.”

      Reply

  3. “Senator Jake Corman was elected in 2020 to serve as President Pro Tempore of the Pennsylvania Senate, where he presides over the Senate floor when the Lt. Governor is unavailable.

    “As the top-ranking official in the Senate, Senator Corman is responsible for appointing the chairs and members of the Senate’s 22 standing committees while serving as an ex-officio member of those committees. The office also refers bills and resolutions to the appropriate Senate committees for consideration.”

    It’s pretty clear that Corman is an enemy of President Trump, since led the senate as it certified the most fraudulent presidential election in history.

    Why did he file for certiorari to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court? Was he trying to pull the case out of the SCOTUS and send it back to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which favors the criminals who stole the election? Are the legal challenges the same in both filings to SCOTUS–i.e., the legality of counting votes after election day? I don’t know the answers to these questions.

    Reply

  4. The judges are either paid off or blackmailed. If there was ever a reason to riot or go to war this is definitely one of them because we no longer live in a democratic republic. We now live in a communist state

    Reply

    1. 1. We live in a capitalist state, which is under the control of the global capitalist class.
      2. Riots don’t accomplish anything, and our leader, President Trump, supports law and order.
      3. We patriots are already at war with the global capitalist class. It is being waged on different fronts–legal, technical and informational–but the power resides principally with the U.S. Armed Forces.

      Reply

Join the discussion