This was how the election was stolen.
Supreme Court turns away Pennsylvania election-related disputes
In his dissent, Thomas said the Supreme Court has the opportunity to address the issue of
"nonlegislative officials" changing election rules well before the next election and called the court's refusal to hear the disputes "befuddling."
"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," Thomas wrote. "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."
Alito filed a separate dissent, in which he said he agreed the cases should be heard, and was joined by Gorsuch.
"A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election," Alito wrote. "But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections."
In addition to declining to take up the two cases involving Pennsylvania's deadline for mail-in ballots
, the Supreme Court also rejected election-related disputes from Georgia, Arizona, Michigan and Wisconsin with no noted dissents.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-2020-election-disputes/
Clarence Thomas dissents from Supreme Court decision not to hear cases on Pennsylvania election fraud
“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. Art. § 4, cl. 1; Art. II, § 1, cl 2.
Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example,” wrote Thomas.
“The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day,” Thomas continued. “Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days
. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence--such as a postmark--that the ballots were mailed by election day.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election,” he added. “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.”
"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," Thomas wrote in his dissent.
"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."