Posted on 12/22/2022 5:25:40 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
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.
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.
The is a BOMBSHELL, HUGE NEWS... not. Not to mention totally false per the headlines.
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.
There isn't one.
Your own links prove that as I've shown you!
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!
Right.
One never truly knows what will move four Justices to get off the dime.
It's a law passed by Congress and Constitutional, isn't it?
Sister, it isn't just your slip that is showing.
What...too old/obscure?
Why are you talking inanities?
It seems your desired action is inaction. Not to get off the dime, as it were.
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.
Just look the other way. Nothing to see here.
THAT is what you're doing.
Fait accompli is a French term that means a thing which is done or accomplished; a completed act.
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.
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.
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.
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.