RINOS BRETT KAVANAUGH AND AMY CONEY BARRETT SIDE WITH THE OTHER CORRUPT LIBERAL JUSTICES IN REFUSING TO HEAR 2020 ELECTION VOTER FRAUD CASES

0
379

by Geoffrey Grinder, Now The End Begins:

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions. On the November 4th election night, when a handful of Democratic-run states suddenly decided to stop counting the votes, I immediately cried out ‘fraud!’, and no one can tell me any different. And now that the Supreme Court voted to not hear the lower court cases concerning election night and voter fraud, that tells me they are engaging in coverup. Because who wouldn’t want to hear those cases, and let whatever the truth is come rising up to the surface for all to see? That would settle the question forever, instead we now have yet another conspiracy theory verified.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote –to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.

Iactually left the Republican Party back around 2015 after watching how the GOP let the radical Left walk all over them time and time again, I only came back to vote for Donald Trump which I did twice. So I cannot use what’s happening currently as my reason for quitting the Republican Party because I am no longer a member. But I would like to draw your attention to this as further proof of election night shenanigans.

On the November 3rd election night, when a handful of Democratic-run states suddenly decided to stop counting the votes, I immediately cried out ‘fraud!’, and no one can tell me any different. And now that the Supreme Court voted to not hear the lower court cases concerning election night and voter fraud, that tells me they are engaging in coverup. Because who wouldn’t want to hear those cases, and let whatever the truth is come rising up to the surface for all to see? That would settle the question forever, instead we now have yet another conspiracy theory verified.

Clarence Thomas Dissent in Election Cases: ‘Our Fellow Citizens Deserve Better’

FROM BREITBART NEWS: Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions. Four justices must vote to hear a case to put it on the Court’s docket, but only three justices — Thomas, fellow conservative Samuel Alito, and libertarian Neil Gorsuch — voted to take at least two of four of the key cases from November 2020.

All three dissenting justices took the unusual step of writing opinions as to why the Court should have taken at minimum two of these cases.

“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” began Thomas. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example.”

“THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE ESTABLISHED AN UNAMBIGUOUS DEADLINE FOR RECEIVING MAIL-IN BALLOTS: 8 P.M. ON ELECTION DAY. DISSATISFIED, THE PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT EXTENDED THAT DEADLINE BY THREE DAYS,” THOMAS EXPLAINED, REFERRING TO ONE OF THE REJECTED CASES. “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.”

“For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution operates as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power to regulate federal elections,” he continued, quoting Supreme Court precedent. “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 elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that give citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election,” Thomas added, quoting a recent Supreme Court case that held, “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.” 

“Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections,” he explained. “To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly — although not as consistently as we should — blocked rule changes made by courts close to an election.”

The mail-deadline case did not impact enough votes to change the 2020 election. “But we may not be so lucky in the future,” Thomas warned. “Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result.”

Thomas surmised:

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. 

“At first blush, it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises,” he aknowledged. “But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”

“For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible,” Thomas explained of the five-week window to resolve November presidential election disputes before the Electoral College meets in December, adding “this timeframe imposes especially daunting constraints when combined with the expanded use of mail-in ballots.” 

Read More @ NowTheEndBegins.com