SCOTUS scoots past Penn. election law case

"Justice [Clarence] Thomas makes the point [in his dissent that] this is going to happen again – and with H.R. 1 on the plate … this signals that the court is not willing to do anything. [H.R. 1 is a] horrible, horrible takeover of the election system by the feds, controlled then by the leftist government that you're watching taking more and more power day by day. It's coming up probably this week for a vote; something has to stop them."

"[I suspect] Justice [John] Roberts and others on that court are really afraid that the Democrats are going to expand the court and they will lose their power – and this is their way of saying [to the Democrats] 'You don't need to [do that]'. Because why would they expand it [if] they have the court they need? They have this wonderful court that rules in their favor. And now with Amy Coney Barrett, [Brett] Kavanaugh, [Chief Justice] Roberts already are ruling with the liberal justices, why would you expand the court?"

Sandy Rios, director of governmental affairs
American Family Association

Justice Clarence Thomas called the cases an "ideal opportunity" to address an important question whether state lawmakers or state courts get the last word about the manner in which federal elections are carried out. And he called it "befuddling" and "inexplicable" that his colleagues were declining to weigh in."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," he wrote

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a handful of cases related to the 2020 election, including disputes from Pennsylvania that had deeply divided the justices just before the election.

More @ One News Now