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 –


    • Yes!

    • Shirley, I pin a lot of hope on the Epstein scandal machine being a major contributory factor. The fact that he was an intelligence community operative points to who the actual domestic threat is to this Nation.

    • Pretty easy when your family's well being has been threatened 

    • she knew what she was getting into and if she doesn't have the courage to do her duty to the Constitution she should resign because a devildemocommiecrat can sell us out just as easily!!!!!!!!!!

    • Yeah, but you don't do the duty if you can't do the duty. 

      How is SCOTUS laid up but still drawing pay?

    • Skeptical, my guess to answer your question is that the entire Supreme Court is under some threat/contract. I think we all have that figured out. Their pay and power are just part of the deal/bribe. Demoncraps business as usual.

    • Some justices were appointed by a conservative President. 

      Ther has to be a stick amongst the carrots.

    • Thank you, Col. Nelson for showing the correct procedure.


This reply was deleted.