BREAKING! Great News on Election Fraud Cases Before Supreme Court
We’ve been waiting a long time for something to happen with the election cases, especially those that went before the Supreme Court.
There are still a lot of cases on the Supreme Court’s docket that are waiting to be heard…if they will be.
For months now, they’ve been saying that SCOTUS will not even look at the cases until after Biden was inaugurated. Now that he has been inaugurated, it’s time for them to keep their word and actually look at the evidence.
Well, it looks like that day is finally coming, at least partially. On February 19th, the Supreme Court is set to consider Sidney Powell’s Michigan election case, Lin Wood’s Georgia election case, and the Pennsylvania election case.
The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases presented by philadelphia premises liability lawyer include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states. Hiring offshore injury lawyers for a second opinion is a good choice.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.
In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden’s inauguration, their success would be unlikely.
But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.
I hope they don’t just toss this one out like they did the Texas lawsuit, but I honestly don’t think that they will. The reason they turned down the Texas one is because they claimed that they didn’t have jurisdiction. These other cases that they will soon look at are completely different.
Sources:
Washington Examiner