Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al., (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress) [on USSC docket 1/6/2023] (Defendants can be permanently removed from office, and not allowed to hold a public office again.)

Posted on 12/22/2022 5:25:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum


Because the USSC wanted this case, it bypassed the lower courts. The filing attorney believes that the date January 6th was chosen as a signal of what the result is going to be.




TOPICS: Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: bs; childish; conspiracy; foolishness; forgetit; grifters; ignorance; no; nonsense; notgoingtohappen; nutjob; playpretend; psychotic; qtardism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last
To: Bruce Campbells Chin
There is no Constitutional basis for the Court to order the relief requested.

You're telling me to read about the SG taking over the case when you don't even know that the writ states exactly where and what the Constitutional basis is.

Do you need me to point out the exact words or can you find them yourself?
Raland J. Brunson, Petitioner v. Alma S. Adams, et al.

41 posted on 12/22/2022 7:42:32 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This thread is misleading. This particular Petition is obviously now dead-listed, won’t even get a second of discussion at their next January 6th conference meeting, and set to be put on the CERTIORARI DENIED list along with the rest of the dead-listed ones and most of the ones that actually do get discussed but have 0, 1, 2, or 3 justices who want further action (but not the 4+ needed to proceed).

Here is this petition’s docket and the fact that there has not been any call made for a Response is telling that it’s dead-listed. If at least 1 Justice (out of 9) has shown interest in having the Case discussed then the Clerk would’ve put out a Call for Response.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html

Only a dishonest and/or ignorant fool would think otherwise.

Now, if something changes on this docket before January 6th, such as the Clerk putting out a Call for Response, then I will reconsider my opinion on this. It’s just that tens of thousands of cases have gone down this same path and in every situation I’ve ever seen with the path like this particular Petition its ended as CERTIORARI DENIED. I have never seen one like this where its beome CERTIORARI GRANTED. Just look at the docket history on all of the Petitions that get CERTIORARI GRANTED and see for yourself.


42 posted on 12/22/2022 7:42:45 PM PST by Degaston (no autocrats please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

The is a BOMBSHELL, HUGE NEWS... not. Not to mention totally false per the headlines.


43 posted on 12/22/2022 7:45:21 PM PST by maddog55 (The only thing systemic in America is the left's hatred of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
And rather than prove that assertion, because who wants to spend time doing something fruitful like supporting their argument, one can merely speak a thing and make a thing so. Got it.

I assumed you were familiar with the Constitution but maybe I'm wrong, so I'll help you out. The Constitution specifies two, and only two, ways to remove the President from office.

The first way provided by the Constitution to remove the President from office is by impeachment and conviction, as stated in Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution, and by the procedures described in Article 1, sections 3 and 4.

The second way is via removal by the 25th Amendment, and by the Procedures described therein. And that's it

It should be noted neither of those procedures involves the federal court system at all, other than stating that the Chief Justice presides over the impeachment trial of the President in the Senate. But even then, only the votes of the senators themselves can remove the president from office.

This request that the Supreme Court, on its own authority, remove both the President and Congress from office is ridiculously far beyond the scope of anything even hinted at in the Constitution. If you disagree, please feel free to quote the article and section, or constitutional amendment, that specifically authorizes the Supreme Court to do this.

44 posted on 12/22/2022 7:48:33 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
I'm not debating with a link. You tell me, directly, what specific provisions of the Constitution authorize the Supreme Court to remove both the President and Congress from office.

There isn't one.

45 posted on 12/22/2022 7:50:34 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Degaston
THE WAIVER WAS THE RESPONSE!

Your own links prove that as I've shown you!

46 posted on 12/22/2022 7:52:44 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
I'm not debating with a link.

The link is to the case. The case has words. Read the words.

Disprove the argument presented BY the words therein.

You step into a debate and you don't even know the subject matter. AMAZING!

47 posted on 12/22/2022 7:55:08 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Right.

One never truly knows what will move four Justices to get off the dime.


48 posted on 12/22/2022 7:58:20 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin
I'll help you out... e) Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. ” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office.

It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

49 posted on 12/22/2022 7:59:19 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
One never truly knows what will move four Justices to get off the dime.

Sister, it isn't just your slip that is showing.

50 posted on 12/22/2022 8:00:48 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

What...too old/obscure?


51 posted on 12/22/2022 8:02:26 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Bruce Campbells Chin

Why are you talking inanities?


52 posted on 12/22/2022 8:03:19 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
No. To move, to take action.

It seems your desired action is inaction. Not to get off the dime, as it were.

53 posted on 12/22/2022 8:05:44 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Not so.

Just aware of the stiff odds, intimidating, really, and the fact that the SCOTUS Justices have 100% discretion to do whatever they please in response to Certiorari writs.


54 posted on 12/22/2022 8:09:30 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
Ironically, in NOT supporting this to be heard you're prompting/encouraging the Supreme Court Justices to break their own Oath of Office as well.

Just look the other way. Nothing to see here.

55 posted on 12/22/2022 8:10:26 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
You're writing it off as a fait accompli.

THAT is what you're doing.

56 posted on 12/22/2022 8:15:12 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

Fait accompli is a French term that means a thing which is done or accomplished; a completed act.


57 posted on 12/22/2022 8:20:08 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

There is no way on God’s green earth that the SCOTUS will rule to remove office holders. But then again I never thought Roe V Wade would be struck down either.


58 posted on 12/22/2022 8:34:07 PM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?

It is not unconstitutional on its face, but like a lot of other laws, it could be applied unconstitutionally. In this case, an attempt to use it to remove a sitting President from office would be unconstitutional. The Constitutionally correct legal remedy for treason by the President would be three steps: 1) The House would impeach the President for treason, 2) the Senate would vote to convict him by a 2/3 majority, and then 3) the now former President could then (and only then) be prosecuted criminally for treason under 18 U.S.C. Section 2381.

The idea that you could just bypass the entire Constitutionally-mandated impeachment procedure simply by some lowly federal prosecutor bringing charges against a sitting President, and then having him convicted in any one of nearly 700 federal district courts around the country, is absolutely absurd.

Just think how easy it would be for a single prosecutor in D.C. to convict a conservative Republican President of treason (they might have tried it against Trump if it was possible) and then just give him the boot. There isn't any hint anywhere in the Constitution that is permitted, nor is there anything in Supreme Court caselaw suggesting that a criminal conviction of any kind results in the removal of a President. You want him out? Impeach him, then prosecute him criminally.

The argument for removing members of Congress for not doing an investigation is even worse. The doctrine of legislative immunity is incredibly well-established, and the failure of a legislature to do something you think they should have done isn't actionable against them as individuals no matter what.

Apart from that, the whole premise of the argument is absurd. Congress has no constitutional obligation to investigate anything unless Congress determines it is necessary. Nothing in the Constitution gave the courts the power to make that determination. What the Constitution did do is leave it up to the states to choose their own electors. So if you want to go after how those states chose their electors, the proper remedy is to sue the states.

59 posted on 12/22/2022 9:03:55 PM PST by Bruce Campbells Chin ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC
There is no way on God’s green earth that the SCOTUS will rule to remove office holders.

Why? Because it hasn't been done before?

But then again I never thought Roe V Wade would be struck down either.
I agree. See 27.

60 posted on 12/22/2022 9:10:49 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-82 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson