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:


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:

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

Join Tea Party Command Center

Email me when people reply –


    • Exactly Vivian, SCOTUS makes laws when Republicans are in charge and submits to laws when Dems are in charge... No wonder Trump had no standing

    • Could those two processes be visa versa to the political parties?

      If not , could you explain your emphisis?

    • Yes and no, we the people elect the elected expecting them to follow the constitution, and if either party doesn’t, then we elect the other party to overrule the party that didn’t or doesn’t, so yes we would expect the republicans to enforce the constitution onto SCOTUS which includes applying law onto the other party that did not follow the constitution.  The party that fully follows the constitution is the winner, following it half way is deception (like a half truth).  Currently neither party is constitutional, so neither is right and both have become corrupt to no end, because republicans, the party we associate our values more with, do not enforce laws onto the other party even when they easily can. 

      The constitution is (supposed to be) the supreme law of the land, congress and senate make laws within constitution boundaries (senate functions as their advisor), the executive branch is the speaker for all of congress (and senate) but with executive powers enumerated in the constitution. SCOTUS has no power, they verify that lower courts follow the constitution and that's where their enforcement ends.  Any cheating, malpractice, etc is dealt with by law enforcement, there are many branches for law enforcement within the country and a few for enforcing the constitution within the government. Certain amendments were created by the split of our government into parties, one of them limits presidential terms, the party system has created a banana republic

      So, the Dems are more constitutional in this respect, they make laws and SCOTUS follows, it's how it should be and how they win, but they pick and choose text in the constitution, make their own unconstitutional and deceptive laws and enforce them for their own ends which are usually against the country (law enforcement obeys the Dems since republicans are subservient to scotus) ... the Republicans pick and choose too which makes them RINOs, and they don't enforce which makes them servants for the dems

  • I called their number (Supreme Court 202-479-3000) 3 times and was advised by voice mail that they do not have a message box and to send a regular mail to them, which I will.  The 4 time I called it went to the switch board.  When I advised them I wanted to file a complaint about the decision the operator advised me they do not take complaints and that I needed to contact the Attorney Generals office ( 202-353-1555- main switchboard is 202-514-2000).  So that is next.

    Start complaining where it counts!  It may not make a difference but there is power in numbers that is why they are afraid of us.  WE have to take action and take back our country.  Stay in their faces, that is what the dems do.

    • The Attorney general does not have any control over what the supreme court chooses to hear or not hear. They were just trying to get you off the line by feeding you bull shit..

    • The Attorney General(s) select, prepare, and submit those State and Federal cases that they believe should be heard by the Supreme Court ...  The Supreme Court then reviews and selects those cases they believe merit a hearing by the Court and set it on the Docket to be heard.  AG's have much to say about which cases are submitted and by inference what cases are selected to be heard by the Court. 

    • Oh yeah - go ahead and contact the Attoruney General - Merritt Garland, the Biden Nominee, is not a moderate [as the left keeps trying to claim].  He is as much of a Communist as the rest of the Democrats are? 


    • That worked in the 19th century, less so the 20th and has completed stopped working this century

  •  I am disgusted.  With this decision they have rendered our United States Constitution to be null and void, and will continue to burn it.  The truth about each traitor sitting on SCOTUS is going to come out, and not soon enough.

  • This administration is already reconstructing our military, starting with another oath in the Navy.  If we the people don't do something, our loss will be a guarantee

This reply was deleted.