The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenges to the election. Clear and simple. This brings up a very salient point: The news media has said from day one that President Trump lost the election and that charges of stealing the election were baseless. The Trump campaign has said from the very beginning that President Trump won the election because of election fraud. The Supreme Court apparently is saying there were not enough illegal ballots to change the outcome of the election. Failing to consider is a disservice to the American public. Denying the challenges without explanation is shirking responsibility to the people on a very highly-charged and national issue. Enter dissenter Justice Clarence Thomas.
Before people jump the gun and declare the “truth,” the “real,” the “absolute proof,” of all sorts of conspiracy theories about the election, they should take a few minutes to read the dissent by Justice Thomas. Thomas, who has a sense of dedication to his country and obligation to the people he serves said, “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.”
Thomas wrote: “Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.” In a footnote, Thomas writes: “We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud. But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence…”
He concludes: “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.” Thomas appears to believe that there was not systemic fraud. He also concludes that rule changes at the state level likely did not result in enough ballots to change the election, but they shouldn’t have been allowed. Notwithstanding, Thomas believes the Court should have settled it for the American public. This further tests the divider between truth and believing what you want to believe. Someone has lied here and the Supreme Court could have at the very least settled rather than shirked. To the rest of us, we must discern, for as Christ said in Matthew 24:4, “Take heed that no man deceive you.”
