An 'Application' to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accepted as a Writ of Mandamus through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This Writ of Mandamus (Application) is something Justice Thomas can rule on independently, or he can forward it to the whole of the Supreme Court.
The applicant is asking that Florida's 2022 General Election (with a 2020 option) be set aside and held anew. There is also room for the 2020 election cycle to be set aside as well, since the evidence shows the same uncertified and uncertifiable equipment was used in both election cycles.
The same evidence proves that the whole of the elections throughout the country were vulnerable to the same fraud, which allows Justice Thomas, or the whole of the Supreme Court, to set aside the results of the entire country for both the 2020 and the 2022 election cycles
Bigger problem is, the supreme court doesn't like to set too much precedent if it doesn't have to. The fact that he was so willing to take it up Means one of two things:
The evidence is so clear that it is plain on its face constitutionally what it means, so he wants to make it known what is supposed to happen.
The evidence is clear against what we believe to be accurate as far as a technicality of the law, he wants to jump to it and get it cleared up.
In the past, the supreme court has made it very clear that they do not want to be the ones to Determine the results of an election. That has been the direction of most suits asking them to overturn given x election.
I think of all the cases that have come to them about elections so far, this has been a fairly clear-cut one. With reasonable requests. it provides a fact of law that does not overturn an election per se, And allows for a very clean remedy to the issue period that is the kind of stuff that the Supreme Court likes period
https://www.georgiarecord.com/election-integrity/2023/10/24/breaking-11th-circuit-emergency-writ-accepted-to-hear-case-to-invalidate-fraudulent-2020-2022-elections-justice-clarence-thomas-to-rule/
An 'Application' to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accepted as a Writ of Mandamus through the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
This Writ of Mandamus (Application) is something Justice Thomas can rule on independently, or he can forward it to the whole of the Supreme Court.
The applicant is asking that Florida's 2022 General Election (with a 2020 option) be set aside and held anew. There is also room for the 2020 election cycle to be set aside as well, since the evidence shows the same uncertified and uncertifiable equipment was used in both election cycles.
The same evidence proves that the whole of the elections throughout the country were vulnerable to the same fraud, which allows Justice Thomas, or the whole of the Supreme Court, to set aside the results of the entire country for both the 2020 and the 2022 election cycles
The 11th Circuit also covers Georgia.
Bigger problem is, the supreme court doesn't like to set too much precedent if it doesn't have to. The fact that he was so willing to take it up Means one of two things:
The evidence is so clear that it is plain on its face constitutionally what it means, so he wants to make it known what is supposed to happen.
The evidence is clear against what we believe to be accurate as far as a technicality of the law, he wants to jump to it and get it cleared up.
In the past, the supreme court has made it very clear that they do not want to be the ones to Determine the results of an election. That has been the direction of most suits asking them to overturn given x election.
I think of all the cases that have come to them about elections so far, this has been a fairly clear-cut one. With reasonable requests. it provides a fact of law that does not overturn an election per se, And allows for a very clean remedy to the issue period that is the kind of stuff that the Supreme Court likes period
The court has no interest in justice, But keeping the status quo intact.
Who are you talking about, specifically?
SCOTUS isn't some ruling council that can push edicts from on high. Are you sure you understand what they are allowed to do Constitutionally?
So far they have been fantastic the last few years. A couple rulings that seem to have not gone our way were, in fact ruled correctly for the cases.
They can't just make stuff up, or go off on tangents, or stuff not specifically related to the cases presented.