The supporters of Hillary have said that there is no possibility of voter fraud occurring. However, there are cases of thousands, if not millions of people in different states placing ballots illegally.
The Democrats are supporting voter fraud as it only helps their candidates.
In Ohio, a swing state, Democrats were against the voter monitors at the polling stations because they think it would “intimidate minorities.”
But the Supreme Court just said that argument is ridiculous, and it has been shot down unanimously!
The Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a plea from Democrats to restore an injunction barring Donald Trump’s campaign and its allies from Election Day actions that could intimidate voters looking to cast their ballots in the battleground state of Ohio.
No justice dissented from the court’s action, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a brief statement noting that Ohio statutes already make it a crime to interfere with people trying to cast their votes.
“Mindful that Ohio law proscribes voter intimidation…I vote to deny the application,” Ginsburg wrote.
The Ohio Democratic Party filed an emergency application with the high court Sunday, asking the justices to reimpose the restraining order a federal appeals court lifted earlier in the day. Democrats said the 6th Circuit Court of Appeal had “no basis in law” to lift the lower court’s order.
However, the Supreme Court—which tends to be wary of last-minute changes to election rules or procedures—declined to disturb the appeals court order overturning the injunction.
Five justices are typically needed to grant such emergency relief.
What are your thoughts on this?