SCOTUS Surprises Everyone With Bombshell Election Decision

At last, the Supreme Court has decided to side with sanity.

Of the many cases that the Court has been tasked with hearing, one of them pertains directly to election fraud, specifically voters who submit out-of-precinct ballots and individuals who conduct various ballot harvesting activities.

In other words, the types of activities that Ilhan Omar associates were busted engaging in, conveniently before the 2020 elections.

However, in its very recent ruling, the Court affirmed an Arizona statue, Arizona’s HB 2023, which expressly prohibits ballot harvesting and outlaws out-of-precinct voting. As part of its analysis, the majority in the Court confirmed that Arizona’s bill does not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which pertains to racial discrimination.

While the decision should have been 9-0, it was at least 6-3.

After all, how exactly is banning ballot harvesting or out-of-precinct voting racist? If anything, the left’s insistence that a ban is racist could in an of itself be considered a rather biased remark, as the left is basically suggesting that racial minorities are the ones primarily engaged in ballot harvesting and other questionable voting procedures.

However, anyone who doesn’t make everything about race and division, which would be American Patriots who recognize that America is the land of opportunity for all, obviously recognizes that Arizona’s bill is meant to protect election integrity, and protect election integrity only, not promote racial division.

Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, made the intention behind the bill blatantly clear, though the fictional news media will likely add its own troubling interpretation to very well-reasoned legal commentary.

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act provides vital protection against discriminatory voting rules, and no one suggests that discrimination in voting has been extirpated, or that the threat has been eliminated. But Section 2 does not deprive the States of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules, and that is precisely what the dissent’s radical interpretation would mean in practice.” [Source: Breitbart]

See that, lefties?

“Section 2 does not deprive the States of their authority to establish non-discriminatory voting rules …”

Perhaps Biden should read this Court opinion, assuming he reads anything at all, which might make him rethink the incredibly baseless lawsuit his administration has just launched against Georgia for daring to pass its own non-discriminatory voting rules.

However, the vastly more reasonable Court opinion makes it rather clear that fraud, not discrimination, is the central concern of this case.

“One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight …

Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome. Ensuring that every vote is cast freely, without intimidation or undue influence is also a valid and important state interest. This interest helped to spur the adoption of what soon became standard practice in this country and other democratic nations the world round: the use of private voting booths.” [Source: Breitbart]

Thank you, Supreme Court, at least the majority, for recognizing reason in a time of complete insanity.

Especially when the Court itself has participated, at least to a degree, within the insanity.

In recent times, the Court has made a number of surprising decisions, especially given the current conservative majority.

Not only did the Supreme Court flat out refuse to even hear any remotely reasonable challenges to the 202 election results, but it has also made several other surprising decisions in recent times, leading one to wonder exactly how “conservative” the Court truly is at this point in time.

One of the most surprising recent decisions included the case regarding eviction moratoriums, which have unsurprisingly been extended several times since Biden has taken power.

The previously most recent moratorium had been due to expire on June 30, which was a date undoubtedly looked forward to by landlords who are forced to bear the costs of running a rental business while incurring none of the revenues that sustain it.

However, the Court just decided to side against landlords collectively suffering from billions of dollars in losses in unpaid rent by choosing to extend the eviction moratorium, once again, to July 31.

Most crazily of all, Kavanaugh wrote the opinion in that case.

However, the Court’s decision on ballot harvesting and other questionable voting practices does bring a sense of relief, and one can only hope the Court will continue along this reasonable path for the foreseeable future.

Author: Jane Jones