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

Skip to comments.

The US Supreme Court Case that Could Change Everything
Golden Age of Gaia ^ | 11/26/2022 | Suzanne Maresca

Posted on 11/28/2022 12:34:49 PM PST by nikos1121

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 next last

4 am ...


101 posted on 11/28/2022 10:00:32 PM PST by Tunehead54 (nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

https://rumble.com/v1xq4xw-scotus-2020-its-not-over-yet.html

we shall see


102 posted on 11/28/2022 10:31:11 PM PST by rolling_stone ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

https://rumble.com/v1xq4xw-scotus-2020-its-not-over-yet.html


103 posted on 11/28/2022 10:32:08 PM PST by rolling_stone ( ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: semimojo
USSC trumps a lower court last I heard. Also, the one rejected by the lower court was a separate petition that had a different basis for the claims made.

You're completely correct that the SC receives a very large number of petitions per year. This one though has apparently made it past step 1 where vertically all petitions are rejected. So, on to step 2 that is supposedly coming up for consideration quickly as the petition was accepted as an emergency.

I haven't tracked down the SC docket yet to try to verify the OP article and video. Will try and do that Tuesday afternoon or evening.

104 posted on 11/29/2022 1:18:13 AM PST by Hootowl99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: conservativesister

They took it off the sidebar in seconds.


105 posted on 11/29/2022 1:48:20 AM PST by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: semimojo

A second FR post on this USCC subject. A more polished write up in the OP but still a higher end news source would be useful. Not sure higher end is the right word. The website is just not one I have crossed paths with enough to have an opinion about.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4112484/posts


106 posted on 11/29/2022 1:53:41 AM PST by Hootowl99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

“None of these guys are lawyers, and they have lost every flakey case they’ve filed.”

I would’ve been good if they had found a lawyer with SCOTUS experience to work with/for them on this. It’s an interesting case.


107 posted on 11/29/2022 2:13:27 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

“I’m not sure that even if they win their case, that the requested relief is constitutional.”

SCOTUS ruled decades ago that “Fraud vitiates everything”. It’s very clear.

Problem is that SCOTUS has been too chickens—t to touch 2020 fraud issues, even saying that wronged and disenfranchised voters don’t have standing. If voters in an election don’t have standing, who the hell does? Really? I don’t hold out much hope that they’ll get involved.

You’d think they’d care, considering that free/fair elections impact their own positions and that court. Guess they don’t.


108 posted on 11/29/2022 2:17:27 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

philman_36 wrote: “This is about actions not taken before the inauguration and after the election. I can post the relevant parts if you would like.”

go ahead.


109 posted on 11/29/2022 5:09:23 AM PST by DugwayDuke (Most pick the expert who says the things they agree with.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Hootowl99
This one though has apparently made it past step 1 where vertically all petitions are rejected. So, on to step 2 that is supposedly coming up for consideration quickly as the petition was accepted as an emergency.

According to the brothers' own website the case has been docketed. That means it's been received, logged and is on a list to be dealt with. They are requesting that the court hear their case, that is, grant certiorari.

That request will be denied without any consideration of the merits of the underlying case because the original court made the obvious ruling that you can't sue congressmen if they're acting in their capacity as congressmen. US legal system 101.

As if that wasn't enough, the brothers aren't even waiting until the 11th Circuit court hears their appeal.

This will never make it past the first clerk who looks at it. Just like almost all of these petitions.

110 posted on 11/29/2022 6:47:04 AM PST by semimojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

I’m wondering if this gives the SC the opportunity to fight back against Congress. It’s been clear that over the past few years Congress, in the name of Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, etc. have intimidated and threatened supreme court justices. They’ve also threatened to increase the number of Supreme Court justices.

In one quick swoop, this would give the supreme court, a quick win and clear message to congress that they better not screw with us


111 posted on 11/29/2022 7:57:42 AM PST by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam
I would’ve been good if they had found a lawyer with SCOTUS experience to work with/for them on this. It’s an interesting case.

It may well be that enough justices at SCOTUS were looking for the right case to assert the court's power without appearing political, and they just happened to find this one. It's like the proverbial blind squirrel finding a nut occasionally. The plaintiff brothers spent a lot of time and effort on this, and they have been rewarded. Pro se parties occasionally get lucky at SCOTUS by bringing cases that lawyers won't touch for whatever reason. This may be just such a case.
112 posted on 11/29/2022 8:03:19 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

“Pro se parties occasionally get lucky at SCOTUS by bringing cases that lawyers won’t touch for whatever reason. This may be just such a case.”

Encouraging. Let’s hope this will be a light in a dark time.


113 posted on 11/29/2022 9:13:33 AM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Could be, could be.


114 posted on 11/29/2022 10:05:04 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Great minds drink alike...me and my baby havin' a hell of a night. - - BB King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam
Encouraging. Let’s hope this will be a light in a dark time.

The trick of getting SCOTUS to grant certiorari is convincing them that a case is important. When SCOTUS is looking for the right case to hear, it gets easier to get that writ. Unfortunately, SCOTUS is so accustomed to its discretionary jurisdiction that it refused to hear a case under its mandatory original jurisdiction, Texas v. Pennsylvania. That was a dangerous precedent that it is now scrambling to correct somehow.
115 posted on 11/29/2022 11:08:17 AM PST by Dr. Franklin ("A republic, if you can keep it." )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121

This is not newsworthy unless Oral Arguments are scbeduled or some Order has actually been issued.

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


116 posted on 11/29/2022 11:21:24 AM PST by Degaston (no autocrats please)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Franklin

“Texas v. Pennsylvania. That was a dangerous precedent that it is now scrambling to correct somehow.”

Yes! That was a travesty when they refused to hear it — because of “standing”. I don’t recall how many states joined with Texas in that case, but there were a lot. If SCOTUS had dealt with that issue things might be totally different today.


117 posted on 11/29/2022 12:43:49 PM PST by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Respondents were properly warned and were requested to make an investigation into a highly covert swift and powerful enemy, as stated below, seeking to destroy the Constitution and the United States, purposely thwarted all efforts to investigate this, whereupon this enemy was not checked or investigated, therefore the Respondents adhered to this enemy.

Sen. Cruz calls for commission to do emergency audit of election fraud claims

118 posted on 11/29/2022 2:57:16 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Degaston

Ok


119 posted on 11/29/2022 3:36:26 PM PST by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: nikos1121
Docketing doesn't mean shit. Cert will be denied by a clerk. At least denial of cert will end up on a list, which seems to be enough to thrill you and the "Complaintanants". Thank God those Brunsons have day jobs...


120 posted on 11/29/2022 4:11:43 PM PST by StAnDeliver (Tanned, rested, and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-126 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