Sign up for our newsletter

Below is a report that DML News gives a 4 OUT OF 4 STARS trustworthiness rating. We base this rating on the following criteria:

  • Provides named sources
  • Reported by more than one notable outlet
  • Does not insert opinion or leading words
  • Includes supporting video, direct statements, or photos

Click here to read more about our rating system.

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by TheHill.com:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) threw his support behind an effort to get the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a ruling dismissing a GOP-led challenge of Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting system.

Cruz is the first senator to publicly voice support for the appeal, which came after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court shot down a lawsuit protesting the system as a way of overturning the Keystone State’s election results, which showed President-elect Joe Biden defeating President Trump.

The article goes on to state the following:

“This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis,” Cruz said in a statement.

Cruz’s full statement, posted as a press release on his website, reads as follows:

“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.

“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.

“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.

“The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’

“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.

“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.

“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.

“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”

To get more information about this article, please visit TheHill.com.

Sign up for our newsletter
Previous articleREPORT: Trump says he’ll veto defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated
Next articleREPORT: Trump, Kushner, White House sued by watchdog to prevent illegal deletion of official emails, WhatsApp messages

9 COMMENTS

  1. How does just almost 100% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats feeling like the election was fraudulent equate to 39% of the population?

    • Well, by definition, a liberal is someone who doesn’t know anything about politics. When you’re 1st learning, you’re liberal by default. Then, when you learn, 50% become conservative and the other 50% stay liberal out if lazyness, greed, evil, etc. Recognizing this, a liberal is more likely to not vote at all than a conservative. So 350 million Americans, 100 million voting conservative, and 95 million (95% of them) believing the election was rigged, and 50 million voting liberal, 15 million (30% of them) believe the election is rigged. That’s 110 million of the voting population that believes the election was rigged. Now, there’s an additional 100 million people that didn’t vote. If 80 million of them are liberal, and 20 million conservative, then 95% of the 20 million is 19 million, and 30% of the 80 million is 24 million. So, 110 million total voters who believe the election was rigged in addition to 43 million non voters woo believe the election was rigged, is a total of 153 million people who believe the election was rigged. 153 million is 43% of the 350 million population. If you adjust some of the numbers you could easily get it to 39%, or even 36%.

  2. The rampant fraud is so obvious throughout the states that the Supreme Court would be blind not to see what has been going on.

  3. They need to take out all the illegal votes for the presidential election. Trump would win in every one of these stated. They should do this in California for the presidential election as well.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here