RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nysun.com/national/justice-thomas-in-a-fiery-dissent-illuminates/91427/

The refusal of the Supreme Court to take up a challenge to Pennsylvania’s last minute changes to its ballot deadlines in the 2020 election was done without explanation by the majority. All the more clear is the case for reforming our national law on Election Day — the need for it to be a single date with results that can be announced after the polls close. It’s not election week, month, or season. It’s Election Day.

In 2020, six states failed to meet this standard. These states unfairly threw the process of counting the electoral college and popular vote into chaos. Forty-four states managed, despite the pandemic. In 1845, Congress enacted the Presidential Election Day Act to establish a “uniform time for holding elections for electors.” It declared that “the Tuesday after the first Monday in November” is the day on which all states must appoint electors.

Since the 1848 election, states have been able to meet this deadline despite the 1918 pandemic, World Wars I and II, and hurricanes. A single election day and prompt reporting is part of the peaceful transfer of power. The idea is that voters should not have to wait days or weeks to hear election results. The longer the vote-counting takes, the more exceptions made during the counting process, the less confidence voters have in the outcome.

This was certainly the case in 2020. And the press was complicit in the disruption by refusing to call election results due to the “red mirage.” This was an idea first pushed by a Democratic consulting firm funded by Mayor Bloomberg saying that on election night it was highly likely that President Trump would appear to have won in a landslide, but would ultimately lose when all the mail-in ballots were counted over the next week.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/clarence-thomas-blasts-the-supreme-court-for-ducking-the-pennsylvania-election-challenge/

EXCERPT;

The Court this morning turned away the remaining challenges to the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan. Some of these challenges were legally meritless, and none of them offered any legitimate grounds to change the outcome of the presidential election, but the Pennsylvania case in particular raised a serious, recurring issue of election law: whether state courts or state executive officials can use the general, open-ended terms of state constitutional provisions to throw out specific rules passed by state legislatures governing federal elections. Articles I and II of the Constitution reserve to state legislatures the power to set rules for federal elections.

That’s exactly what happened in Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania supreme court used the Pennsylvania Constitution’s general guarantees of “free and equal” elections and “free exercise of the right of suffrage” as an excuse to invalidate the state legislature’s explicit deadline for mail-in ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day — the same time the in-person polls close. That deadline was enacted in 2019 and left untouched in revisions to the mail-in ballot rules during the pandemic in 2020. The Court should have heard the case before Election Day, in order t0 ensure that the rules of the road were set in advance. Refusing to hear the case either before the election or after the election guarantees that the issue remains unsettled for the next election.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, wrote a dissent blasting the Court for repeatedly ducking this issue (Alito added his own dissent).

https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2021/02/22/conspiracy-theo

Today’s conspiracy theories, like their predecessors, frequently target Jews. This age-old hatred was on shameless display during the Capitol riots, where one thug wore a “Camp Auschwitz” T-shirt. He was not alone. A Rutgers University report found that at least half a dozen neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups were involved in the riot. Still more extremists without any formal affiliation joined them, according to research by Robert Pape and Keven Ruby.

Among right-wing groups like the Proud Boys, anti-Semitic tropes are commonplace. They are staple features of QAnon conspiracy theories, which mark Jewish names with triple parentheses to label them as usurpers and predators. Some groups borrow from Nazi propaganda and denounce Jews as “not members of the white race.”

Anti-Semitic vitriol like this is not new. What’s new is its rationale, which is now divorced from medieval and early modern religious doctrines. Indeed, anti-Semitism is now part of a broader ideology of illiberalism that endangers America’s long-standing principles of individual rights and tolerance.

Historical Anti-Semitism

In the Middle Ages and the early modern era, anti-Semitism was largely a product of religious tensions coming from an overwhelmingly Christian society and directed by the Catholic Church, not only at Jews but at Christians they deemed heretics. That’s changed dramatically as the West has become more secular. The old curse of “Jews as Christ killers” has waned. So has the bizarre “blood libel” that Jews kill Christian children to drain their blood and mix it into unleavened bread for Passover.

These ideas weren’t just noxious; they were deadly. They not only excluded Jews from an overwhelmingly Christian society, but they justified lethal attacks. Among the most prominent were those that accompanied the First Crusade (1096–1097). As Christian warriors left for Jerusalem, they massacred whole Jewish villages in the Rhineland. Their compatriots in France did the same.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/justice-clarence-thomas-dissents-from-supreme-court-on-election-case-we-need-to-make-it-clear_3706242.html

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion regarding the high court’s decision not to take up a case challenging the Pennsylvania Nov. 3 election results.

The court on Monday announced it won’t take up lawsuits challenging a Pennsylvania state court decision that relaxed ballot-integrity measures, including a move to extend the ballot-receipt deadline during the November election by three days due to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus. Former President Donald Trump and Pennsylvania’s GOP urged the court to take up a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

“This is not a prescription for confidence,” Thomas wrote on Monday, adding that “changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough.” Thomas, considered by many to be the most conservative justice, said the court should have granted a review.

“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,” Thomas wrote (pdf). “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.”

Other than Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.