Mon Feb 22, 2021, 09:01 PM
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (62,254 posts)
Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims
WASHINGTON – A blistering dissent in a high-profile election case written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas prompted blowback Monday from Democrats who accused one of the court's most conservative members of embracing baseless claims of voter fraud promoted by President Donald Trump after the November election.
In an 11-page dissent from the court's decision not to take up a challenge to the expanded use of mail ballots in Pennsylvania, Thomas acknowledged that the outcome of the election was not changed by the way votes were cast in the battleground state. But he raised questions about the reliability of mail-in voting that echoed many of the same arguments Trump raised in the weeks before and after the election. Fact check: What's true about the 2020 election, vote counting, Electoral College The dissent followed the court's decision Monday to turn away a challenge to accommodations the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court made for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic. The state, one of a handful of tossups that ultimately led to the election of President Joe Biden, allowed absentee ballots to be received up to three days after Election Day, even in cases where those ballots did not have a clear Nov. 3 postmark. In the end, despite the partisan rancor over the issue and a bevy of lawsuits, there were too few ballots at issue to make a difference in the outcome in the Keystone State. But Thomas and two other conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the legal questions should have been taken up by the high court to guide future elections. https://www.yahoo.com/news/dissent-justice-thomas-election-case-223407739.html ![]()
|
9 replies, 1024 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin | Feb 22 | OP |
TwilightZone | Feb 22 | #1 | |
Deacon Blue | Feb 22 | #5 | |
tulipsandroses | Feb 22 | #2 | |
Miguelito Loveless | Feb 22 | #3 | |
Atticus | Feb 22 | #4 | |
RainCaster | Feb 22 | #6 | |
crickets | Feb 22 | #7 | |
jalan48 | Feb 22 | #8 | |
electric_blue68 | Feb 23 | #9 |
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 09:04 PM
TwilightZone (20,491 posts)
1. His argument seems to be that there's nothing there, but next time there could be.
That's not a valid reason to dissent in my opinion.
|
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #1)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 11:10 PM
Deacon Blue (172 posts)
5. Advisory Opinions Impermissible
Every con law student knows the Court only adjudicates live controversies. This comes perilously close to rendering an advisory opinion...
|
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 09:04 PM
tulipsandroses (2,865 posts)
2. Being that his wife supported the big lie. He should be excluded from these cases
He cannot be an impartial justice on this matter with his wife supporting this nonsense
|
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 09:07 PM
Miguelito Loveless (3,013 posts)
3. This is why the court must be expanded
to 13-15 judges.
|
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 09:13 PM
Atticus (10,311 posts)
4. Does Clarence ever utter anything that is not wingnut "obiter dicta"? nt
Response to Atticus (Reply #4)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 11:21 PM
RainCaster (7,116 posts)
6. Is that Latin for "talking with your head up your ass?" nt
Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Original post)
Mon Feb 22, 2021, 11:59 PM
jalan48 (11,516 posts)