ADMIN

Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissented from the denial. Call again. And again. Flood the lines. At least they’re getting an immediate reaction from us!

CALL THE SUPREME COURT! (UPDATE phone system down!) keep it coming
8586711899?profile=RESIZE_584xread more here: https://populist.press/sidney-powell-updates-on-all-scotus-election-cases/

 

Supreme Court Denies Review Of Pennsylvania Election Challenge As “Moot”

 

Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent, arguing the cases are not moot because, in Alito’s dissent, “the cases now before us are not moot. There is a ‘reasonable expectation’ that the parties will face the same question in the future.”

No surprise here. The Supreme Court has refused to accept a case challenging the Pennsylvania election result, on the basis that the mail-in ballot procedures were illegal, as “moot”.

 

The Order recites:

The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot. The motions of Thomas J. Randolph, et al. for leave to intervene as respondents are dismissed as moot. The motion of Honest Elections Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 20–542 is granted. The motion of White House Watch Fund, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 20–574 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Justice Thomas, dissenting, argued the Court should take the case:

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. 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. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. 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. 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.

* * *

read more here: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/02/supreme-court-denies-review-of-pennsylvania-election-challenge-as-moot/

You need to be a member of Command Center to add comments!

Join Command Center

Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • You have been lately waxing prosiac Colonel (good stuff though). I am interested to know your thoughts about my preamble ramble LOL.

    • Ron ... have you been a member of the JAG Corp?

    • Thank you Ron for your concrete comments/suggestions.

  • The SCOTUS is being privately told if they don't toe the line on the LIberal Lefts agenda that the Congress and President will stack the Court with more hard-left judges.... they will rewrite the Federal Judiciary Act to increase the number of justices on the Court.. and the power of individual justices will be dramatically reduced.  The Courts Powers definitely need to be restrained.. but not by stacking the Court with left-wing activist judges. 

    The SCOTUS's Jurisdiction needs to be restricted to apply only to the Case in Law before them and NO FURTHER...  The power of judicial review to ESTABLISH CASE LAW... aks 'Stari Decisis' must be ENDED AND ENDED by Amendment to the Consitution, along with establishing TERM LIMITS for the SCOTUS Judiciary... one term, 6 yrs maximum.

    Also, the SCOTUS should be reorganized into three divisions... criminal, civil, and constitutional law,  each with a panel of 7 justices, which will hear specific classes of law... Thus expanding the Court to handle more cases and to specialize the Court's expertise.  The Court's decisions regarding constitutional law should not be considered definitive... UNLESS Congress takes their findings under review and amends or repeals the law... the Court's decision should never replace law... PERIOD. 

    The SCOTUS's decisions should apply ONLY TO THE CASE IN LAW BEFORE THEM... with all similar cases having to be heard on their own merits ... to receive relief from an unconstitutional law.  Again, the SCOTUS must not be the final arbiter of the law... the doctrine of judicial review must be just that ... review as applied to the case before the Court and no others... review must not extend to making new law or voiding existing law... that is the prerogative of the Congress and Executive Branches.  Maybury vs. Madison must be reversed or restricted to review of the case in law before the court and no further... to no other cases.

    Our founders wanted the Federal Judiciary Branch to be the weakest of the three Branches ... they never intended to provide the Judiciary with the power to change or create new laws thru the judicial process... never.  They also wanted the JURY SYSTEM to be the ultimate judge of both the LAW and THE FACTS... We must reinstate the power of Grand Juries and Pettit Juries as the focus for our legal systems adjudication and indictment processes.  Grand Juries must be available to the common man and seated 24/7... They must operate independently from prosecutors, and judges thus placing the power to indict and enforce the law in the hands of the PEOPLE... The Grand Jury must have subpoena and investigative powers.  They must be able to independently compel the production of evidence, and testimony.  They must be free to indict Judges, prosecutors, and all politicians, upon evidence of probable cause that a crime has been committed. No more prosecutorial discretion that allows whole classes of people to avoid prosecution...  No more prosecutorial discretion... too, pick and choose who is held accountable under the law, put that power back into the hands of the People, with a Jury System that can not be dismissed or maneuvered by Judges or Prosecutors.

    • It looks like you are incorporating an inquisitorial nature to office holder improprieties (not that I would mind cutting loose a political Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada on them, Pelosi particularly).

      But your tiered SCOTUS scheme does offer relief by compartmentalizing the varied legalities, and repurposes the stacked court threat. That I really like.

      But I would like to see a restructured threshold for case acceptance. Also, employing the Grand and Pettit juries with traditional discretion and authority alarms me as an individual valuing civil liberties, as much as the accepted under color of law presidential proclamations of the Executive Order (been having any qualms about it lately?).

    • P/S we know that the SCOTUS has been publically informed by the Democrat Party Leadership that if the Court swings hard right they will stack the Court with more leftist judges... We can discern what additional contacts have been made based on prior history of the Democrats... and by observing what should have been a solid shift right ... actually resulting in a very definitive and hard shift LEFT. 

  • They are FORCING an Armed Insurrection from the MARKED 75 Million Right Wing Trump Supporters..! I Think That Is Exactly What They Want..!  China (CCP) May Be The Culprits Behind All Of This Insanity..! I Know This: MILLIONS Of Us Have Had Enough Of The Bullshit..!  This Is NOT Going To Wait For A Possible 2024 Trump Run. It WON'T Even Last Until An Attempted TakeOver Of The Houses, Just One Or Both In 2022..!  The Walls Are Closing In On Us..!

    • supporters of President Trump ARE NOT "right wing", we are Constitution supporters, nothing "right wing" about holding to our founding document!!!!!!!!!!

    • The Lexington green militia was cautioned not to fire until you see the whites of their eyes. 

      Sage advise. Be concentrated on the goals.

  • Why do we need the spineless members of the scotus ????

This reply was deleted.