The chances of the Supreme Court providing a remedy to electoral fraud in America continue to grow more improbable.
The nation’s highest court this week dealt another blow to the election-integrity movement by refusing to bring forth fraud lawsuits represented by Sidney Powell, the pro-Trump attorney who has been panned by the establishment media as a “conspiracy theorist.”
The court shot down Powell’s suits against Arizona and Wisconsin’s election results in less than 10 words, writing simply: “The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.”
The “extraordinary writ of mandamus” Powell requested would have forced the lower courts to take immediate action on those cases, which she described as of the highest “public importance.”
The Supreme Court, however, did not answer any of the four questions Powell and her team posed, which were the following:
A. Whether presidential electors have standing to challenge the outcome of a presidential election for fraud and illegality that cause the defeat of their candidate?
B. 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?
C. 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?
D. 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?
Powell responded to the Supreme Court’s statement, calling it a “tragedy.”
“The Supreme Court’s failure to date to address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the rubble of a sinkhole of corruption,” she wrote on Telegram. “It is an absolute tragedy for the Rule of Law, the future of what was a Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the world.”
Powell has been the subject of retaliation by the establishment. Dominion, the voting-machine company, has sued her, along with Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, for $1.3 billion, claiming that their comments have cost the company business.
Lin Wood, the right-wing attorney known for defending the Covington Catholic High School boys and who has himself been called a conspiracy theorist, is Powell’s legal defense in that lawsuit.
Moreover, an ethics complaint filed with the D.C. bar last week seeks to punish the attorneys behind the “boldly frivolous” election lawsuit between Texas GOP Congressman Louie Gohmert and former Vice President Mike Pence. The complaint in question aims to disbar the pro-Trump attorneys for allegedly filing frivolous lawsuits.
Powell has made numerous claims about the 2020 election, including that Dominion technology was developed in Venezuela and used by dictator Nicolás Maduro to steal the country’s Constitutional Assembly election.
The Supreme Court famously refused to hear cases that would have addressed the subject of voter fraud in the 2020 election, declining to take up a case by several states, led by Texas, to challenge allegedly fraudulent results in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case.
And last week, the Supreme Court decided to not hear two cases involving an appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision requiring election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrived up to three days after the election.
“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,” wrote Justice Thomas. Justices Alito and Neil Gorsuch agreed with him.
