Clarence Thomas rips ‘baffling’ SCOTUS dodge of election case: ‘Our fellow citizens deserve better, expect more’

The Supreme Court refused to hear two Pennsylvania election cases centered around mail-in ballots, as the high court makes it clear that it has no desire to intervene in the Democratic Party’s endless manipulation of the electoral process for political gain.

Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent that the decision will result in confusion and an “erosion of voter confidence” — Thomas was joined in his dissent by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Calling the decision “baffling,” Thomas questioned the high court for continuing to skirt the issue.

“One wonders what this court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules,” he wrote. “Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”

Thomas was critical of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extending the deadline.

“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” he wrote. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

He added that the Supreme Court needs “to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.”

One of the cases was filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, who argued a voting reform law signed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf was unconstitutional because it was not passed by a constitutional amendment.

“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,” Kelly tweeted.

Kelly said in a press release the law “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.”

The law provided for no excuse mail-in voting where ballots can be acquired 50 days before an election and submitted as late as 8 p.m. on Election Day — the deadline was extended until three days after the election by the state Supreme Court if ballots were either postmarked by Election Day or had missing or illegible postmarks.

“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,” Kelly added.

Trump appointees Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett declined to hear the case — either jurist would have provided a fourth vote needed for the court to take the case, according to the Associated Press.

Social media users hailed Justice Thomas for his courage to take on the big issues we face as a country.

Here’s a quick sampling of responses to the story from Twitter:


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.
Tom Tillison


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles