The post-2020 presidential race is really starting to look like a political sequel to Groundhog Day, where you wake up every morning reading what feels like the same headline from the day before (and the day before that, and the day before that). In this case, the recurring headline is: Trump Voter Fraud Nonsense Rejected in Court.
Seriously, the grossest, most unpopular guy on Tinder hasn’t had people judge and swipe left on him as many times as it has happened to a GOP lawsuit challenging the election results. Well on Tuesday, the commander-in-dude-just-leave and his band of loyal, nose-up-Trump’s-ass Republicans have suffered yet another debilitating loss as the Supreme Court—the court y’all’s soon-to-be-ousted president pinned all his hopes, dreams and delusions on—swiftly rejected a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn the state’s election results.
“The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”
That’s it. That’s the entire contents of the Supreme Court’s order rejecting the GOP request. You know your case ain’t shit when justices spend around the same amount of time explaining your denial as a Black mother spends on any explanation that includes the words, “because I said so.” According to the New York Times, there were “no noted dissents” among justices in making the ruling.
From the Times:
The court now has three justices appointed by Mr. Trump, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose rushed confirmation in October was in large part propelled by the hope that she would vote with the president in election disputes. But there was no indication that she or the other Trump appointees were inclined to embrace last-minute arguments based on legal theories that election law scholars said ranged from the merely frivolous to the truly outlandish.
Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have lost about 50 challenges to the presidential election in the past five weeks, as judges in at least eight states have repeatedly rejected a litany of unproven claims — that mail-in ballots were improperly sent out, that absentee ballots were counted wrongly, that poll observers were not given proper access to the vote count and that foreign powers hacked into and manipulated voting machines.
The truth is everyone knew this last-minute bid to overturn Pennsylvania’s results was a long shot except Trump, his minions and the rest of his living-in-right-winger-fairytale-land cult.
According to the Washington Post, Trump appealed to his enablers...I mean, supporters on Tuesday afternoon, just before the court’s order was released.
“Now, let’s see whether or not somebody has the courage—whether it’s a legislator or legislatures, or whether it’s a justice of the Supreme Court, or a number of justices of the Supreme Court—let’s see if they have the courage to do what everybody in this country knows is right,” Trump said, the Post reports.
So far, it appears that the courts, including that of the Supreme variety, are trending towards not bending to Trump’s bullshit idea of “courage.”
The Reno Gazette-Journal reports that on the same day the Supreme Court rejected the case in Pennsylvania, Nevada Supreme Court justices also unanimously dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump campaign seeking to overturn that state’s election results.
For someone who hates the media and hates losing, Trump sure does seem hellbent on giving media publications endless opportunities to say or write, “Trump fucking lost again” in their reports.
Trump’s people filed their lawsuit in Nevada on Monday asking the high court to reverse Judge James Todd Russell’s Friday finding that “the legal team for six Republican electors failed to prove the Nov. 3 election was swayed by fraudulent or illegal votes,” the Gazette-Journal reports.
According to the Post, the justices in Nevada gave more than a one-sentence explanation, unlike the justices in the Pennsylvania case. In Nevada, a 40-page order was released explaining why Trump is still every bit the loser he was on Nov. 7, when Joe Biden was projected as our next president.
“To prevail on this appeal, appellants must demonstrate error of law, findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion in the admission or rejection of evidence by the district court,” the order stated. “We are not convinced they have done so.”