Dennis PragerFounder, PragerU · Founder of PragerU | NYT best-selling author

Justice Thomas Wanted to Hear the Pennsylvania Case on the Election Rules

26 Feb 2021 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

1:06

In a brief dialogue, Speaker A explains Justice Clarence Thomas’s strong dissent regarding the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear a Pennsylvania election‑rules case. He outlines the mootness doctrine—specifically the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception—and argues that the Court’s denial effectively permits state officials to ignore or override existing election statutes, such as voter‑ID requirements, for partisan advantage. Speaker B asks why the U.S. Supreme Court would have jurisdiction over a state court decision, prompting Speaker A to clarify that the state court’s actions (and the Secretary of State’s) allegedly violated the U.S. Constitution, giving the federal court authority to intervene.

Chapters

Justice Thomas wrote a blistering dissent about this. And in particular, look, the legal doctrine on whether a court, a case is moot or not, in other words, there's no reason now to make a decision because the matter is over, is you don't consider it moot if what happened is capable of repetition and evading review. And that exactly describes the situation that happened in Pennsylvania. And in fact, why this, decision is so dangerous, because it gives a green light now to government officials in future elections, like secretaries of state or governors or state judges, to say, oh, you know, that state law, for example, that requires an ID when you go vote, I really don't like that. And I think it'll help the candidates of my political party if I just override that law. And, and this Supreme Court decision by refusing to take this case basically says, yeah, go ahead and do that.
We may not have time. I'll carry you over. But what I'm not clear on is why the Supreme Court of the United States has jurisdiction over a state ruling Does that— is that a wrong question?
No, no, it's a correct question. The reason is that, um, what the state court and the Secretary of State did violated the U.S. Constitution.
Okay, all right, explain that as soon as we get back. Okay, that's what I needed to hear. I don't know why I'm keeping you on.