Posted on 11/28/2022 12:34:49 PM PST by nikos1121
Bttt.
5.56mm
SCOTUS hasn't agrees to hear anything, and won't hear this. As long as the paperwork follows the legally required format, the clerk will accept it for filing, but that is ALL that has happened.
Do not get up any hopes for this. It is absolutely doomed to fail on multiple levels.
Members of Congress have failed to uphold their oath of office so many times in the past, it would be a singular change in direction if they ever would uphold their oath of office.
Then why have they agreed to listen to the arguments and vote whether or not to hear the case? Why didn’t they dismiss it altogether?
I’m not the only one asking this. Several legal scholars were on TV this past weekend amazed that the SCOTUS is contemplating it.
The new House, will uncover the scandal in our government. It runs so deep, and we know here that the RINOs are just as bad as the democrats.
I”ve been depressed since the election of 2020. I can’t believe what is happening with our elections.
IT used to be one day, not 60 days to elect someone.
It’s on the docket because the losers below paid the fee and filed the petition. Just like thousands of others that get denied. Getting on the docket is the equivalent of winning a participation trophy.
curiouser and curiouser...
again, we shall see.
Sod Off, Swampy, as the old saying goes.
That is the point, Biden was not elected, the election was stolen. That is why none of the people listed in the law suit are elected. Trump is still the President because he won the 2020 election. Our entire government is run by crooks. I have been watching this all play out since 2017!! Do some research and you will find the truth.
Another poster says it has been accepted for review. As are 10,000 cases a year. And most of those will never even be looked at by a single Supreme Court Justice. Their clerks weed out most of them.
If 4 justices have agreed to accept it, THEN it is a huge deal.
Whether it flies or not, my hat is off to them for trying. It beats the nothing everyone else (including me) has done. May the Almighty give the SCOTI the courage to do the right thing for once.
The original website says the Supreme Court has received the case. Per the website: “Petition docketed! (The clerk of the Court tells Raland that they have everything they need.)”
Then (23 Nov): “Good news! Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit...”
No, that is not “good news”. It means the Solicitor General is so certain the case will NOT be heard that she isn’t even going to waste time filing a response!
Here are the keywords: election2020; electionfraud2020; elections; insidejoke; scotus; supremes;
Probably hard to search for it, since the link is to SCOTUS itself, and the title of the thread is from another source, given that the link does not have a good 'FR' title to use.
What relief are they asking for? I can’t see anything substantive being done even if they win.
First, regarding this statement: "I don't think a Supreme Court (or any other court) has the constitutional authority to remove an elected member from office..."
The appropriate argument to this would be that the usurper was not duly elected, but assumed the office as a result of demonstrable fraud. That said... point #2:
Second point: the lawsuit alleges that Congress failed its duty when it declined to investigate. However, even if the brothers win their case and SCOTUS orders Congress to investigate then we all know what would happen: Congress collectively would make a statement to the effect of "there's nothing to see here" and declares the "investigation" to be over.
It's frustrating, but until somebody can actually provably win any election fraud case in a lower court (let's get that going, Arizona), that's the way it's gonna be.
Well, "I" was certainly unaware of it, and I try to follow the news closely. I am amazed that Congress refused to investigate by such a margin.
Sorry, but that's not what the Constitution says. Once the oath has been administered, Biden is President. The Constitution lists all of the ways Biden can be forcibly removed from office, none of which includes the courts.
We must respect the Constitution above all else, no matter how that affects how we might want things to work out. The various states certified their elections and presented their slate of Electoral College Electors. The Senate accepted these certifications, and counted the votes from the Electors. You say the election was stolen. I say the election was stolen. But the Constitution says the process was followed, and Biden was sworn in as President.
That is why all U.S. oaths of office include the words "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We start altering elections ex post facto and before you know it we'll be swearing in Al Gore because he "won" in 2000, and every President since were illegitimate.
It is not yet up, as it will be on Rumble - Ninoscorner
I have a copy of the interview that I got off Telegram.
There was another interview of Raland that I viewed over the weekend. There may be a link to that in the other thread.
The court won’t... there will be a process. Discussed on the Nonoscorner interview. The process is somewhat speculative. I think it will involve the military, but there are many paths of possibilities. See the interviews...
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.