The United States Supreme Court reportedly rejected Attorney Sidney Powell's lawsuits versus Pennsylvania election fraud without giving any explanation for doing so.
According to The Gateway Pundit, the Supreme Court refused to review the Pennsylvania election cases filed by Attorney Sidney Powell last December and announced it as moot last Monday, March 1. The Supreme Court, however, did not provide any explanation or comment as to its decision to do so.
Earlier, two of the judges former President Donald Trump nominated into the Supreme Court --Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Associate Justice Amy Barrett-- took the side of the liberal justices while Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito dissented to the decision and have actually pushed that the cases be reviewed.
The Gateway Pundit cited the February 22 tweet of the SCOTUSblog, which is an independent news and analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court, that announced the status of Powell's cases in court.
"BREAKING: After 4 months of inaction, SCOTUS in a one-sentence unsigned order declines Trump's request to further postpone enforcement of a Manhattan DA subpoena for his financial records. The order clears the way for a NY grand jury to obtain the records & review them in secret," SCOTUSblog said.
The SCOTUSblog added another tweet containing the link to the list of orders of the Supreme Court, which included Powell's case in it, before it posted another tweet giving information that the three justices dissented.
"SCOTUS declines to take up a pair of leftover cases from the 2020 election. They involved the authority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to extend the state's mail-in ballot deadline. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch say the court should have granted review," it ended.
The last tweet was a repost of Supreme Court Reporter Amy Howe on the matter. Howe said that the Supreme Court "will not review challenge to Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of mail-in ballot deadline" that former President Donald Trump's team has filed a lawsuit on and that "Justices Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch dissent from the denial of review".
In addition, the Gateway Pundit also cited Politico Congress Reporter Kyle Cheney's tweet with a screencap of the first page of the Supreme Court's decision on the case.
"BREAKING: The Supreme Court has denied Trump's Pennsylvania election challenge as moot," Cheney said.
The first page of the decision read that the "motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot. The motions of Thomas J. Randolph, et. al. for leave to intervene as respondents are dismissed as moot. Th emotion of Honest Elections Project for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in No. 20-542 is granted. The motion of White House Watch Fund, et. al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae in No. 20-574 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied".
Meanwhile, Law & Crime reported that the court said "the petitions for writs of mandamus are denied" for case numbers 20-858 and 20-859, which were the cases regarding the election results in Arizona and Wisconsin.
Each of the mandamus petitions said that a "submission directly to this Court seeking an extraordinary writ of mandamus is unusual, but it has its foundation" and that "while such relief is rare, this Court will grant it 'where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this Court should be taken'".
Law & Crime said that the question of public importance is determined on the bases of the following guides:
- Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate;
- Whether federal courts have and should exercise jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over claims by presidential electors that the presidential election was stolen from them by fraud and illegality under color law in violation of their constitutional rights under the Elections and Electors, Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution;
- Whether a claim by presidential electors to de-certify the results of a presidential election and enjoin voting in the electoral college by the rival slate of electors is barred by laches when it is brought within the state law statute of limitations for post-certification election contests, and before the post recount re- certification; and
- Whether the remedial powers of a federal court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 include invalidation of an unconstitutionally conducted election, and an injunction against presidential electors appointed in such an election from voting in the electoral college.
However, Law & Crime explained, that none of the said questions were answered by the Supreme Court nor did they explain why they did not do so.