Yesterday, The Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) chose not to hear a Case brought by Texas and 18 other States against Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, for violations of election laws in the 2020 Presidential Election.
Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, Alito citing Arizona v. California, 589 U.S. (Feb. 24,2020), wrote, “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill that falls within our original jurisdiction.”
The denial stated in part, “The State of Texas’ motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of ‘standing’ … Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable (within the jurisdiction of a court) interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”
“Lack of ‘standing’? Lack of ‘interest’?
When 18 states whose voter’s votes are – or might be – made null and void by voter fraud, vote shifting and hundreds of sworn affidavits of witnesses to vote counting fraud in 4 democrat controlled states, join the Texas suit, and they together have no ‘standing’ nor ‘interest’?
Why does the Court think they filed the suit and 18 states joined them?
This decision raises numerous questions in the minds of millions of American voters:
Considering this election might well have been “stolen” from President Trump, and failure to consider all the facts, i.e. ‘merits’ of the case for the public’s confidence in future elections, the High Court erred in their decision.
P.O. Box 2225
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035