In his first major speech since leaving office, former President Donald Trump delivered the keynote speech to attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, on Sunday.
During his address, Trump took aim at the way election rules were altered leading up to the 2020 election and slammed the Supreme Court for refusing to address the issue, the Washington Examiner reported.
“Our election process is worse than that in many cases of the third-world country, you know that, you saw what was going on,” Trump told the audience.
He went on: “Even if you consider nothing else, it is undeniable that election rules were illegally changed at the last minute and almost every swing state with the procedures rewritten by local politicians, you’re not allowed to do that, and local judges.”
Thomas: “We failed to settle this dispute”
“Regardless of your political views, this should concern you as a constitutional matter, and the Supreme Court did not have the guts and the courage to do anything about it,” Trump said, adding, “And neither did other judges.”
Trump was not alone in criticizing the Supreme Court over its refusal to review cases regarding election rule changes in the 2020 election.
In a dissent authored last week by Justice Clarence Thomas that was joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Thomas excoriated his fellow justices who had refused to accept a review of a Pennsylvania state Supreme Court ruling that changed the rules regarding mail-in ballots.
“One wonders what the Court waits for,” the veteran justice pointed out. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules.”
“Fail to provide clear rules”
Thomas explained that the court’s refusal to settle the matter has paved the way for confusion and distrust in future elections.
“Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections,” he wrote. “The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.”
Alito also added his voice to the dissent, writing that he agreed “with Justice Thomas that we should grant review in these cases.”
He wrote, “They present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution, Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2, are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted.”