Clarence Thomas, undoubtedly one of the most respected judges who sits on the Supreme Court of the United States, has expressed his dismay with the way in which the Court ultimately ruled over various states questionable election procedures.
In fact, he even muses that the Court seemed to delay endlessly, particularly when the election itself was rapidly approached. As revealed by Thomas, the dispute was not settled before the election, which meant governors’ asinine mail-in ballots were used exactly as they intended.
Which leads Thomas to wonder.
“One wonders what the Court waits for … We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. 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. I respectfully dissent.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
So, in other words, not only was there no resolution before the election, there remains limited room even now for providing “clear rules for future elections.”
Thomas also made it clear that by “doing nothing” all that will result is the further erosion of voter confidence, thought it it safe to say that voter confidence has not exactly been improving since the fiasco of 2020.
“We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legislature. Order in Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20A84. And none of the parties contend that those ballots made an outcome-determinative difference in any relevant federal election.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
Thomas also notes that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision likely did not influence the federal election, or he remarks the change in main-in ballots “does not appear to have changed.” The word “appear” is curious, given that it is deliberately vague … suggesting even Thomas himself has doubts.
These doubts become even clearer as he proceeds in his speech, making it clear that Americans “may not be so lucky in the future.” Thomas also stated that another election result had already been altered by Pennsylvania’s adjusted election laws.
“But we may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result.” [Source: The Daily Wire]
Well, that’s problematic. Laws arbitrarily change, and then someone else inexplicably wins. A bit disturbing, in a way, especially when contemplating the impact on presidential elections.
Which is exactly why Thomas advocates a much greater transparency in terms of what authority non-legislative officials should have to set election rules, and he also believes that they need to do so before the next election.
“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.” [Source: Town Hall]
Inexplicable, indeed. As well as deliberately planned. Neither adjective, however, warrants preventing Americans from enjoying free, transparent elections.
The SCOTUS Blog also revealed the other dissenters who wished to examine Pennsylvania more closely, particularly with regard to future elections.
“SCOTUS declines to take up a pair of leftover cases from the 2020 election. They involved the authority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to extend the state’s mail-in ballot deadline. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch say the court should have granted review.” [Source: Town Hall]
Well, at least Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch stood up for what was right. One can only hope another case will come that the remainder of the SCOTUS cannot just ignore …