Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dropped an 11-page dissent and warning about future elections, amid the Supreme Court's decision to not take on a challenge over expanded use of the mail ballot votes in PA. This dragged Clarence into getting some heavy criticism from Democrats, as it conjured some of the claims of voter fraud that former President Donald Trump had made after losing the 2020 election - claims he made, but was unable to prove in court.

Justice Thomas cast a lot of doubt in how reliable the mail ballot system is. He used a case of fraud as an example, one that took place back in 1990 in Philadelphia during a Senate election. He suggested that "also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected."

WATCH the news video on Justice Thomas' dissent:

Democratic National Committee, Jaime Harrison, said Justice Thomas' dissent was "out of touch, radical & unhinged opinion."

This all came about when the Supreme Court refused to hear the GOP election challenge in PA, prompting blow-back from Republicans on the refusal to even hear the case, let alone make a ruling on it.

Justice Thomas suggests, in his dissent, that by not hearing a case and putting it to rest with a final outcome, that it could lead to the lack of confidence in voters and election integrity. If the Supreme Court is not willing to hear challenges amid controversy, then how can they possibly put an end to the controversies, and how can they help restore faith in America's election system?

Justice Thomas' dissent raises questions about future elections, particularly laws with mail ballots.

The dissent followed the court's decision Monday to turn away a challenge to accommodations the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court made for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic. The state, one of a handful of tossups that ultimately led to the election of President Joe Biden, allowed absentee ballots to be received up to three days after Election Day, even in cases where those ballots did not have a clear Nov. 3 postmark.

In the end, despite the partisan rancor over the issue and a bevy of lawsuits, there were too few ballots at issue to make a difference in the outcome in the Keystone State. But Thomas and two other conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the legal questions should have been taken up by the high court to guide future elections.

"That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome," Thomas wrote. "But that may well not be the case in the future."

One highly shared quote from Justice Clarence Thomas:

11 Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2021) THOMAS, J., dissenting

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to set-tle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clearrules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. 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. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respect-fully dissent.

Are you confident in the American election system after the 2020 controversy?