SCOTUS Clears Pending Trump Cases Off The Docket

Court grants cases that will become moot, denies review in host of election cases, denies stay in tax-return cases, and slaps down Stormy Daniels's anti-SLAPP suit.

|

On Monday, the Court issued a lengthy order list. This order purged from the docket many Trump-related cases, and set the stage for other Trump-related cases to fall off the docket.

First, the Court granted certiorari in challenges to Trump Administration's Title X policy and "public charge" rule. Soon enough, the Biden Administration will ask the Court to take these cases off the calendar, since the policies are being reversed. And, in time, the Court will likely vacate the lower-court decisions.

Second, the Court denied review in a handful of election-related cases:

  • Two cases from Pennsylvania raised the independent state legislator doctrine: Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party. (I will write more about those cases in another post).
  • The Court denied two other cases from Pennsylvania seeking to block the certification of the election: Kelly v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Boockvar(John Eastman was counsel of record in the latter case).
  • The Court denied review in Trump v. Biden. Here, President Trump challenged the modification of absentee balloting rules in Wisconsin. The Court denied review without even calling for a response.
  • The Court denied review in Wood v. Raffensperger. This case, brought by L. Lin Wood, Jr., challenged the method of evaluating mail-in votes in Georgia. The Court didn't call for a response on this petition.
  • The Court denied review in Ward v. Jackson. This case was brought by Kelli Ward, the chair of the Arizona GOP. She challenged a ruling based on allegations of election fraud. The Court also did not call for a response here.
  • The Court denied review in King v. Whitmer. Sidney Powell brought this suit against the Michigan Governor, raising seven questions presented about voter fraud. The petition states, "Petitioners presented substantial evidence consisting of sworn declarations of dozens of eyewitnesses and of experts identifying statistical anomalies and mathematical impossibilities, as well as a multistate, conspiracy, facilitated by foreign actors, including China and Iran, designed to deprive Petitioners to their rights to a fair and lawful election."

(If I missed any election-related cases, please let me know).

Third, the Court denied a stay in Vance v. Trump. Before the election, President Trump filed a last-ditch effort to get the Supreme Court to block the release of his tax returns to the New York City grand jury. With a one-line order, the Court denied that relief. Co-Blogger Ilya Somin wrote about the order.

Fourth, the Court denied review in Clifford v. Trump. Stephanie Clifford, better known as Stormy Daniels, sued Trump for defamation. The lower court held that Trump's statements were hyperbolic, and dismissed the suit under the state anti-SLAPP statute. And yes, the caption actually reads "Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels, Petitioner v. Donald J. Trump."

As best as I can tell, the Court held onto a bunch of pending Trump-related cases, and dismissed, or granted-as-a-way-to-dismiss them all at once.

Soon enough, all things Trump will be purged from the Court's docket.

NEXT: Biden Administration Revokes Trump Changes to Citizenship Test for Immigrants

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Deep State is cleansing itself of populism. There is no legal recourse. Everyone knows what that means, according to formal logic.

    1. Formally speaking it means all these legal cases were a bit shit.

      1. Or justices are fearful.

        1. When they’re fearful they blink SOS in morse code while delivering rulings so, no, the legal cases were shit.

    2. Behar, the government does not operate on formal logic. You could get into serious trouble thinking it does.

      1. The real world does. The lawyer profession operates on self dealing, rent seeking, supernatural, made up shit. Its sole validity it a few guys with guns. All national achievement has been despite this toxic profession, not because of it. The country has been working around the obstructions of these horrible people. All social catastrophes and social pathologies have the lawyer brand on them.

        1. I’ll grant you that physics seems to operate on formal logic. Government does not.

    3. Behar, you can’t address formal logic if you believe in a Deep State.

      1. Home prices dropped 30% in 2008. Those in DC went up. The tech billonaires own the media and the Democrat Party. Lawyers are their agents, making life miserable for everyone, and devastating our economy. While the world GDP dropped $4 trillion, their 2020 profits went up $1.3 trillion compared to 2019. Somebody got rid of Sanders in 5 minutes in South Carolina. Then they got rid of Trump with the Dem Governor lockdowns. Harris, their San Fran prostitute, had no votes in the primary. Even blacks hate her. She is VP to a frail, elderly President.

        This is not a conspiracy theory, with secret plots. This is an oligarchy theory, with people pursuing self interest. They are just much smarter and more vicious than we are.

        The remedy is seizure of their platforms in civil forfeiture for the billions of federal crimes committed there.

        1. They are just much smarter and more vicious than we are.

          Um, pretty much everybody is much smarter than you are.

    4. According to formal logic, “everyone knows” is disproved if you can find someone who doesn’t know. I don’t know. Thus, this part of your assertion is wrong.
      Furthermore, your assertion seems to imply that there can be only one valid conclusion to your “premises”, the one yours truly is obtuse enough to not recognize.
      Regardless of whether your two “premises” are true, there is no clear relationship between them that would qualify them to be part of a formal syllogism. What exactly is your major premise, what the minor one?
      Your first premise definitely is not true. As far as I know, populism has never been assumed to be part of the Deep State. Quite to the contrary, the Deep State has been construed as the antagonist of populism. How, then, can the Deep State cleanse ITSELF of populism?
      “There is no legal recourse” is ambiguous at best. There has been legal recourse, it just so happened that the legal recourse already floundered in the first instance. There is, then, no FURTHER legal recourse. So what?
      You present us some highly dubious assertions with no logical structure, better not talk about “what that means, according to formal logic.”

      1. Is legal liability a substitute for endless cycles of violent revenge, including the kidnapoing of family members to enforce promises?

  2. However, none of this is evidence that the election wasn’t rigged, and Clarence Thomas’ dissent will be proven right by future generations.

    Furthermore, none of this is admissible in the Dominion libel suits — which is probably where you’re going to see an actual trial on the facts. The Windham, NH case is real evidence — as are all the folk they can have testifying.

    This isn’t over yet — IMHO, it was stupid for Dominion to sue.

    1. The election followed the rules and procedures setout and is therefore valid. If you want to challenge this you need to come up with evidence to show fraud. That has not been done. It is easy to make accusations, it is another thing to show them in a court of law.

      1. The election followed rules and procedures, but they often weren’t the rules and procedures the legislature had enacted. While that isn’t technically “fraud”, plenty of things that aren’t fraud can illegitimate an election.

        1. Judicial review – even judicial review you don’t much like – does not illegitimate an election.

          1. When Congress reviewed, and declined, to fund much wall, it no longer was an emergency validating emergency powers’ use, predicated on not enough time for Congrsss to act.

            When a particular state’s legislature considers, and rejects, a governor’s request to change the election laws due to COVID, that’s it as far as the US Constitution is concerned. A governor and a judge have no power to amend those same changes for COVID after that, based on judicial or executive state branch reasoning to override the legislative branch reasoning, directly granted to states.

            1. A lot of the decisions were based on state constitutions.

              But beyond that whopper of an inaccuracy, you’re fundamentally wrong about how the separation of powers works. If a law as applied violates a right, the judiciary should and does invalidate that application of the law.
              This has happened regularly throughout or Republic. It’s bedrock.

              1. The state legislator is granted the power. They considered the proposed changes to the law and rejected them. It ends there. The constitution assigns them that power. Other branches don’t get to assume that power, decide the legislature did the wrong thing, and change that law.

                What you are saying I agree with — except in this particular case.

                The elected legislature considered the proposed changes and rejected them, declining to change the law. That’s it. The rest is unfortunate unconstitutional arrogation of power.

                Ironically, I don’t disagree the changes are good in principle. I just won’t put up with unconstitutional power grabs.

                1. In “the wall” cases, I had no problem with most of the judicial reasoning. Except for one case, where the judge said, “And anyway, I disagree with the rationale provided”. In that case, the judge went beyond applying constitutionality (however strained) and moved into substituting the judicial branch’s reasoning for the executive, or congress’, in justification for the law itself.

                  And also, ironically, I’d love to see many more laws tossed because of crappy or fraudulent cover reasoning, when the real reason is hidden.

                  But I am not a soulless power hungry politician living carefree and unselfconsciously in a goal-oriented situational ethics world.

                2. Legislatures have the power to pass laws; that is not a power immune from judicial review.
                  Judicial review is not an assumption of the legislative power.

                  When events make the application of the law now unconstitutional, that application of the law becomes unconstitutional. That’s not a legislative power, it is a judicial one.

                  You keep saying it’s legislating from the bench, but you have not established that other than insisting it is so.

                3. The state legislator is granted the power. They considered the proposed changes to the law and rejected them. It ends there. The constitution assigns them that power.

                  The independent state legislature doctrine has been routinely rejected by the courts.

            2. It’s one thing to argue that only the legislature can set rules for presidential elections and a legislature isn’t even allowed to delegate any of its authority to anyone else (as was claimed in the Wisconsin Election Commission case). That’s a legal position.

              It’s quite another to argue that the slightest deviation from this rule constitutes fraud or renders the election illegitimate.

              This absolutist position – a single deviation anywhere in the state from the any procedure set by the legislature renders the entire election invalid so state legislature must select elector slate itself – is an obvious ploy to set up strawman, unmeetable pie-in-the-sky requirements that serve no purpose other than to invalidate every popular election targeted.

              As Wisconson Election Commission held, the constitution requires no such thing. The position you are presenting as self-evident has been soundly rejected by the lower courts. The legislature meeely gets to determine the “manner” of elector appointment. The Wisconsin legislature called for an election by popular ballot, and there was one. Details and disputes that don’t change the “manner” of appointment, like the deadline for mail-in ballots or the procedure for validating an absentee ballot application, remain matters and disputes of state law and simply aren’t of constitutional magnitude.

              Further, Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly rejected this position in staying injunctions against Pennsylvania and other officials. The position that state officials and courts can never override legislative rules no matter what has commanded at most 3 justices of the Supreme Court. It’s a minority position.

        2. Again accusations and generalities. What laws were broken? Let’s see some specifics here rather than arm waving.

        3. Brett Bellmore : “plenty of things that aren’t fraud can illegitimate an election”

          It appears that 2020 had the same few score of fraudulent votes as every previous election, which is hardly enough to “illegitimate an election” (as Brett seems to concede). However, he’s found an alternate path to snowflake-victimhood-whining : Court rulings on election procedures that he didn’t approve.

          Numero Uno of these was the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to extend the vote count to ballots received post-Election (postmarked previously). If I had a dime for every butthurt missive from Brett re this, I’d be that much closer to retirement. Yet this ruling resulted in only a few thousand votes that weren’t even counted when PA was called for Biden.

          So here’s the question, Brett : Were there enough votes in your little whiny grab-bag of complaints to change the election result? I seem to remember you conceding there weren’t in the past, but once more for the record. And if not, illegitimate how?

          1. Odd that California has WAY more rejected signatures for the recall of Newsom than for the general election when markedly more people participated,

            Probably a coincidence.

            1. Neat trick considering that the Newsom recall election hasn’t taken place. If you’re whining about the fact that petition campaigns always have a high percentage of bogus signatures, because there is no control, well, that’s like complaining that when playing baseball you can’t get a two point conversion.

              1. I don’t think he’s even whining about that. Kevin Sorbo (!) falsely claimed that they were requiring signature matches for the recall when they weren’t for the general election. And stupid people believed him rather than checking and realizing that relying on a guy who grunted a lot on a TV show for a living probably isn’t a reliable source of information.

        4. plenty of things that aren’t fraud can illegitimate an election.

          No. They can’t. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of elections. They aren’t sports. In sports, the rules define the objectives; if you achieve the objective in a way not permitted by the rules, you haven’t succeeded at all. If you run from second base directly to home plate and touch the plate, it doesn’t count, even though the objective is to touch home, because the objective is actually to touch home by following an arbitrary set of rules.

          But elections aren’t like that. The rules exist only to make sure that the electorate’s choices are made, in an administrable way. If you fill out the ballot in red pen instead of black pen, the fact a rule says that you have to write in black pen is not a good argument for invalidating the ballot. It doesn’t undermine the nature of the election to count votes cast in red ink. (It would, of course, undermine the election to count votes cast by ineligible voters. That’s why fraud does illegitimate the election.)

      2. The courts are rigged. They blocked the views of observers, and found 1000s of ballots at 3 AM.

        1. “1000s of ballots at 3 AM.”

          Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you were a fully functioning and thinking person.

          Guys, don’t make fun of him. He’s special.

  3. One of the worse items has been the abuse of the Jan 6th protestors by the federal prosecutors.

    Repeatedly, rioters during the summer were released on without bail…or even had charges dismissed, all over the country.

    But the mostly peaceful protestors of the Jan 6th protest are having the proverbial book thrown at them, and are being held without bail, despite no previous history of violence.

    Richard Barnett had no history of violence or crime, and willingly surrendered himself to authorities. The judge in Arkansas was to release him on $5,000 bail. But the prosecutors appealed, and Barnett was taken away to DC, where is is held without bail. For months now.

    One protestor DID get out without even needing to post bail. That was John Sullivan, a anti-Trump liberal provacatuer. Sullivan made a tidy profit on the protest, selling his video to NBC and CNN for a combined $70,000, while urging people to burn down the Capitol.

    A light is needed to be shined on these abusive anti-bail practices by basically peaceful people, who had a single altercation.

    1. No special pleading, we need across the board reform.

      The right’s sudden paean for mercy from the criminal justice system is rather late to the party. This is the system functioning exactly as *you* chuckleheads built it.

      You’re going to need to back up your claim of a double standard. Commenters here are *sure* the summer rioters (and even some protersters) are being treated with kid gloves, but it seems more feeling than face whenever I push back.

      And John Sullivan is not a liberal. Look at his history – he’s just into violently inciting at all the things.

      1. Look, that’s just denial, if you have visited his site. He’s absolutely a left-winger. Sure, he has a long history of violent incitement, which makes it all the stranger that they let him go without bail. But it’s generally been left-wing violence.

        Him showing up at a right-wing event, and not being there to bash right-wing heads, is a bit out of character.

        1. it’s generally been left-wing violence

          You don’t get to wave away his appearances at nonleft stuff. There’s not as many raw numbers because the left protests more. He’s gone to both pretty reliably, it’s not out of character.

          It also doesn’t matter compared to the other broader issues with AL’s special pleading.

          1. If he’s lefty, he’s a lefty Boogaloo Boy, which may have a constituency of just him.

            1. Boogaloo Boys aren’t right wing. Sorry to break it to you.

              1. Sorry if I LOL in your face.

      2. The two lawyers in NYC that threw fire bombs at cop cars just got offered a sweatheart plea deal. So yeah BLM rioters are getting the kid glove treatment. I would think it is prime meat for any journalist who had the time to go through dockets. Wonder why they don’t seem to do that, but will publish real time updates on any case involving a tourist who happened to be on capitol hill on the wrong day…

        1. Let’s not cherry-pick out the specific protesters. Heck, one was allowed to travel to Mexico!

          But as far as being peaceful, I just don’t get it. Being part of a mob that unlawfully enters the Capitol, causes property damage, attacks law enforcement officers (140 according to Capitol Police, and this included concussions, cracked ribs, and even one death).

          Of course, the folks who stayed outside were peaceful, but don’t kid yourself and say that the people that entered the Capitol were.

          Currently, about 235 people have been charged. Of those, over 80 have been indicted by a grand jury. About 120 have been released on bail or supervised release agreements.

          As for the lawyers with bombs, I could only find that they were offered deals, but no details. What are the details?

        2. Do you have a source for the “sweetheart” part?

        3. The two lawyers in NYC that threw fire bombs at cop cars just got offered a sweatheart plea deal.

          Why — besides the fact that you’re Jimmy the Dane and it’s what you do — are you lying?

          You don’t have the foggiest idea what deal was offered them.

    2. I periodically note in my local paper people being charged for action taken in summer of 2020. People who committed violence and destroyed property are not getting off.

      The Capital Police in past have arrested Nuns for praying in protest inside the Capital, why should the January 6th insurrectionists get off?

      As for Richard Barnett, he was sitting in the Office of the Speaker. He was not some nobody following the crowd who found themselves walking through the Capital building. What was his intentions being in that Office? What would he have done had the Speaker been present?

      1. I admit that in the beginning I was led a astray by the very first images showing people mostly strolling, at times almost forlornly, through the Capitol. The police officers taking selfies with the people streaming in struck me as if applying a quite intelligent strategy of de-escalation. Richard Barnett sitting in the Speaker’s chair seemed more like an adolescent prankster. That Madame Speaker should be piqued by such lack of awe ─ so what? My barely suppressed anarchic id suggested let those self-important windbags suffer a little irreverence.
        Obviously, the images changed and so did my assessment. Yet, I still think that all those not engaged in violent acts while being sanctioned should have their sentences commuted into community service in the not too distant future. I am afraid far too many will get incommensurate sentences because of hurt feelings, wrath and indignation instead of the extent of their transgressions: cases of lèse majesté against a bunch of little queens and kings in a nominal republic.

      2. He was also armed in that office.

    3. “A light is needed to be shined on these abusive anti-bail practices by basically peaceful people, who had a single altercation.”

      A legal challenge on 5th Amendment grounds would be in order — and serious questions need to be asked about Sullivan.

      Also, how is trying White defendants with all-minority DC juries any less unconstitutional than the Black defendant and all-White jury?

      1. “Also, how is trying White defendants with all-minority DC juries any less unconstitutional than the Black defendant and all-White jury?”

        Well, I have an answer for you: DC Juries are not all-minority as a rule. As one who has sat on many jury pools in DC, I can tell you that they are extremely diverse. This is not surprising given that DC is 42 per cent white.

        Further, an all white jury is not a priori unconstitutional. Look at the holding of Batsen:

        A State denies a black defendant equal protection when it puts him on trial before a jury from which members of his race have been purposely excluded.

        A defendant has no right to a petit jury composed in whole or in part of persons of his own race. However, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors

    4. Let’s not cherry-pick out the specific protesters. Heck, one was allowed to travel to Mexico!

      But as far as being peaceful, I just don’t get it. Being part of a mob that unlawfully enters the Capitol, causes property damage, attacks law enforcement officers (140 according to Capitol Police, and this included concussions, cracked ribs, and even one death).

      Of course, the folks who stayed outside were peaceful, but don’t kid yourself and say that the people that entered the Capitol were.

      Currently, about 235 people have been charged. Of those, over 80 have been indicted by a grand jury. About 120 have been released on bail or supervised release agreements.

    5. If we’re going to choose random people as examples as if it proves some sort of bias, I’ll match your John Sullivan with Jenny Cudd, who is heading on vacation to Mexico while waiting to settle her case.

    6. A specific example comes to mind — a transgendered woman with an injured arm. They refused “her” a MD so “she” went on a hunger strike, so they stripped “her” naked for public display for four days.

      See: https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/capitol-riot-attorney-claims-area-suspect-was-mistreated-forced-to-remain-naked-while-in-local-jail/FYN7XTYNBVFN5MLJULFPBWHMBE/

      Can you imagine the outcry if they did this in any other circumstance? We’d have the ACLU, Lamba Legal and everyone else screaming for that sheriff’s scalp — and they’d likely get it.

      But because the person is jailed (and denied bail) for this — nothing to see here folk….

      And how is this NOT an 8th Amendment violation???

      1. There seem to be some significant doubts about Watkins’ credibility.

      2. Good question, if these allegations are true it’s revolting transphobia and the scalp of every single person involved should be taken. Everybody should be able to come together to deplore this appalling treatment of a trans woman.

  4. I’m torn. Half of me says Trump needs to be held accountable for what he did. The other half of me says that the best thing for the country to heal would be for him to fade away into oblivion, and the sooner the better.

    1. I think this is really Trump’s decision. If he steps out of the limelight, I agree let him fade. Note that he could be a king maker, quietly working behind the scenes, but I don’t think that is his style.

      If on the other hand he is back in our faces, then I think we let the prosecutors and courts take the fight to him.

      1. Be careful what you ask for — you might get it.

        Bite Her Arse is going to overstep.

      2. He’s addressing CPAC and he’s apparently told people he’s the “presumptive 2024 nominee.”

    2. Interesting. I’m generally more moderate than you, but I’m not torn at all.
      This kind of direct and forceful assault on the machinery of our republic is not something you get to ignore.
      It is highly probable that it does not go away with Trump.

      You don’t get rid of this violent anti-democratic strain by indulging it when it goes from bad ideas to violent actions.

      1. You make a good case. And the only historical precedent that we have that’s kind of on point was Reconstruction — after we had an actual Civil War, the voices that called for moderation and treating the Confederacy and its heroes with dignity and respect were the ones that prevailed. The result was a hundred years of Jim Crow.

        1. I tend to think Civil War analogies tend to be overwrought, but this one does seem spot on, including the long tail of Jim Crow.

          Moreover, if the right were correct about the election, they’d be right about violence being the only answer.

          But they are clearly and obviously wrong, and should not be indulged. (It’s tempting to note the difference between the wrongness here and BLM’s thesis about police violence)

        2. There was Obama making a point of letting everything the Bush admin did in terms of torture and manufacturing lies to justify a war and making money off the war slide for the good of healing the nation and unity. It was a fucking catastrophic mistake, almost as bad as bailing out the financial institutions responsible for the Crash.

          1. Or Ford pardoning Nixon.

      2. You might have figured that out last summer during all the rioting, you know. Bit late now, isn’t it?

        1. Yeah, your analogy there continues to be dumb, both as to the core violence at the heart of the Jan 6th insurrection, and the desired change being less police violence especially against minorities versus overturning the election based on bullshit.

        2. Not sure how a heavily militarised police force tear-gassing and beating the living shit out of everyone qualifies as ‘indulging’ but opening doors and giving directions to an invading mob doesn’t.

        3. If what aboutism is really the only thing you have, I’ll accept your concession that you don’t have anything.

        4. Brett, rioting hasn’t ended.

          1. There was one in Time Square just last week that received NO coverage in the media despite 10 police officers being injured.

            1. If it wasn’t covered, how did you hear about it? And do you have a citation, because I just tried googling it, and nothing came up.

              1. Get a ham radio. You will learn a lot about what is going on in the world. Also, it did get some coverage in local press. You can find it. National media was mum (wonder why…..)

                1. OK, so you don’t have a citation. Thanks.

          2. Neither has police brutality, so, yeah.

      3. Nothing will stop “violent” (chuckle) outbursts like Jan.6 as much as forcefully suppressing anybody who does not agree with the left wing narrative on issues.

        1. The people getting ‘suppressed’ are the ones that were violent on Jan 6.

          1. There was shockingly little violence at the capitol hill event. It was generally very orderly and had mostly a carnival type atmosphere according to reports that can be trusted. The only person who died related to the event was an unarmed tourist who was shot by police. When they were asked to leave they did so voluntarily. Stop it with the urban legend that the capitol hill event was something it was not.

            1. Yeah. It was a white conservative crowd, they were allowed to do whatever the fuck they wanted. If they’d been, eg, disabled protesters objecting to some health care horror they’d have been subjected to some good ol’ blue justice and dragged out bodily.

            2. Lots of unsupported statements.

              Read the charging documents. They’re public.

              1. Fortunately, the government is not so brazen to charge peaceful tourists….yet….

                1. In other words, “The people getting ‘suppressed’ are the ones that were violent on Jan 6.”

                  Nice backpeddal.

      4. Yes, crush them. The best thing for this country would have been if capitol police immediately used live ammunition as soon as the breach of the capitol began.

        When groups transition from politics to violence, they need to be defeated with violence to feel humiliated and know that they are defeated. This is an emotional, primal phenomenon, not a logical negotiation or debate.

        For other examples, see the extended insurgency in Iraq, where we surgically removed the government without overly affecting the civilian populace. They never quite got the memo that they were defeated, and so kept fighting. Unlike Germans or Japanese at the end of WWII, who knew and felt defeated, because it had happened to them or they had at least seen the bad effects of the war on everyone around them.

    3. Another rich and powerful guy getting away with everything and anything will do the opposite of promote healing.

    4. Not torn at all.

      The cultists need to see and understand his actions. That might not deprogram all of them, but it will help.

      Just letting him go on and on without being held accountable is a bad idea.

      1. Did you see Purdue’s note on not running for Georgia Senate?

        “Dems stole it from me” is becoming de rigour on the right when they lose. To the detriment of our government.

        1. …but it’s NOT a problem when the Dems have done this. For decades.

          Screw the lot of you.

          1. Show your work, angry Internet dude.

            1. “show your work…”

              internet code for I’m lazy, don’t believe you, so I am going to ignore you until you work the internet for me…

              1. That de-escalated quickly.

              2. lol. Do we need a ham radio for this citation too?

                1. Who needs a ham radio when you’ve got Danny the Gym?

  5. It seems clear that SCOTUS us done with President Trump. He is now the former President and they will no longer afford him the courtesies or privileges of the Office. It appears that they let a proper amount of time pass before dumping the cases.

    As for Justice Thomas’s concern, I would suggest that the Court, in particular the Chief Justice, learned his lesson from the 2013 case on the voting rights. When SCOTUS invalidated the preclearance requirement state legislatures immediately went out to pass restrictive measures on voting. The Court ended up looking bad, although I would say the Court was taken advantage of by the states. Congress has talked about reauthorizing the Act but little has practically been accomplished. Because of this I think there is little interest in handing more definitive authority to the state legislature with regard to voting laws. We are already seeing numerous states proposing voter restrictions for little reason other than one candidate lost. I would say this is not the time to address Justice Thomas’s concerns.

  6. I’d assume that when one comments on a subject, one has informed oneself sufficiently to add value to the discussion. Of necessity, we are more often than not confronted with second hand reporting. Therefore, when the subject is court decisions, it’s almost a must to start by reading the original decision. In the Pennsylvania case, there is a quantitatively not too challenging 11-page dissent by Justice Thomas, and a four-page one by Justices Alito and Gorsuch (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_2c83.pdf).
    Thomas writes: “We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legislature.” (p. 5)
    Hold your breath for a moment and take this in:
    “[T]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision …. does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election.”
    It will be interesting to read more thorough analyses of Thomas (as well as Alito and Gorsuch) justifying the federal court superseding decisions by the Pennsylvania, a state Supreme Court. Another point of interest is Thomas in a way arrogating SCOTUS powers in defending elections against the mere appearance of impropriety when he writes that “the postelection system of judicial review is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results. That is obviously problematic for allegations backed by substantial evidence.” And he continues “But the same is true where allegations are incorrect.” (p. 9)
    Justices Alito and Gorsuch confirm. “Because Pennsylvania election officials were ordered to separate mailed ballots received after the statutory deadline, ,,, we know that the State Supreme Court’s decision had no effect on the outcome of any election for federal office in Pennsylvania.” (p. 2, reference left out.) Alito does not address the “appearance of impropriety” argument of Thomas’; his arguments in a way seem a lot more technical and judicial than Thomas’. In my layman’s view, Thomas offers a lot of political argument where the bright red line between what is constitutional and what is politically desirable at times seems to be too blurred.

  7. The Pennsylvania petition questions were prime for review. The Justices kicked it because I’m sure they would like to put the 2020 election down the memory hole as much as everyone else in the establishment. But, now that the decision stands, while not being binding outside of PA, it can be instructive. And that is going to cause problems in a future election.

    1. And your evidence is . . . . ?

      1. Why would any state not change the rules to support their preferred candidates when they got away with it in 2020?

        1. Because not everyone operates in bad faith.

          Rules were changed to facilitate people not having to choose between risking Covid and voting.

          1. “Because not everyone operates in bad faith.”

            Do you seriously believe this?

            1. You are admitting to acting in bad faith, you realize that, right?

              I have to ask because you and your fellow cultists are logically “differently abled”, and completely self-unaware.

Please to post comments