Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election

The Gateway Pundit ^ | December 14, 2022 | Jim Hoft

[Macho MAGA Man]

While there has been much public attention on the U.S. Supreme Court’s present consideration of the “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper involving North Carolina’s redistricting, that case would not immediately upend the 2020 Presidential Election. In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. Representatives and 94 U.S. Senators who voted to certify the Electors to the Electoral College on January 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 Presidential Election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.

[Dr. Franklin]

People did act. There were dozens of lawsuits. The problem for your narrative is none of Trump's lawsuits alleged fraud.

So there was no res adjudicata, and as I wrote, the courts didn't decide the issue of fraud. That issue remains unresolved by the courts, and SCOTUS has taken an interest in this case, likely because it blames Congress for failing to investigate the fraud, to which certain members of Congress objected, and noted.

[Boogieman]

“So in your mind, entertaining one case will make people certain that they won’t entertain the next case?”

No, entertaining it and then slapping it down in no uncertain terms probably would though.

[semimojo]

That issue remains unresolved by the courts...

It's unresolved because no one raised it.

Do you really expect SCOTUS to rule on a claim that was never even made, let alone adjudicated, in a lower court?

[Mr Rogers]

Actually, the case is one of thousands sent to the Supreme Court. On Nov 23 2022, the Solicitor General refused to file a response. It wasn’t considered worth her time.

Therefor, on 30 Nov 2022, it was automatically scheduled for conference on 6 Jan 2023.

Per the Supreme Court: “If it is clear that all respondents have waived the right to file a response to the petition, it will be placed on the next relevant conference list (i.e., paid or ifp) after receipt of the waivers. Thus, if the waiver(s) in a paid case have been docketed by Tuesday, the case will be placed on a conference list that Wednesday.”

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

“Every petition that is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains on the docket, will eventually be distributed for a conference, usually held on a Friday. The date of the conference depends upon whether or not the Court is in session, in recess or on vacation. (There were 39 conferences during the 2011 Term.) Does this mean the Court will discuss each petition distributed during their conference?...

For those justices participating in the pool, the petitions are read by one of the four law clerks typically found in each of the justices’ chambers. Each of them writes a memo as to each petition he or she read that summarizes the petition with a recommendation as to whether or not the petition is cert-worthy. These pool memos are then distributed to the participating justices. Prior to the conference, the Chief Justice circulates a “discuss list” containing any petitions he deems worthy of further discussion. Each justice can add to the list any petition he or she deems worthy. Very few, if any, petitions on the discuss list are granted.”

https://www.counselpress.com/page_blog_single.cfm?bid=11

ALL of the paid cases go to “conference”. No justice has to support it at that stage. This case goes to conference. That does not mean ANY Supreme Court Justice thinks it is interesting.

[Tuxedo]

Definitely hugh and series...

[GingisK]

about a million to one??

What are the chances that the odds are that good?

[Dr. Franklin]

“Every petition that is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains on the docket, will eventually be distributed for a conference, usually held on a Friday. The date of the conference depends upon whether or not the Court is in session, in recess or on vacation. (There were 39 conferences during the 2011 Term.) Does this mean the Court will discuss each petition distributed during their conference?...
For those justices participating in the pool, the petitions are read by one of the four law clerks typically found in each of the justices’ chambers. Each of them writes a memo as to each petition he or she read that summarizes the petition with a recommendation as to whether or not the petition is cert-worthy. These pool memos are then distributed to the participating justices. Prior to the conference, the Chief Justice circulates a “discuss list” containing any petitions he deems worthy of further discussion. Each justice can add to the list any petition he or she deems worthy. Very few, if any, petitions on the discuss list are granted.”
https://www.counselpress.com/page_blog_single.cfm?bid=11

I note that the source was published October 25, 2012, which makes it quite stale. That source does note that the law clerks at SCOTUS can be quite influential in getting certiorari granted. From what is available online about this case, someone at SCOTUS is pushing to have the case heard. We don't know exactly who at present. It does present a novel issue of holding the Congress accountable for failing to investigate election fraud. No one raised that issue previously anywhere.

[gibsonguy]

The Chief Justice has a lot of say on the docket not to mention the sway he has with Kavanaugh. 3 rats, Kavanaugh and Roberts that’s 5 so there you go.

[Freedom56v2]

For more info, go to Rumble and type in Brunson...

From what I heard, SCOTUS clerk wanted this case ASAP

[dangus]

Well, it’s a moot point. We both fell for the Gateway Pundit’s utter lack of journalistic competence. What a low-life, hack webpage. I should know NEVER believe a WORD GatewayPundit ever writes.

Turns out the Supreme Court is NOT “considering” the case. You might say it is considering to consider it. But that only means that it ended up on a list of potential cases and in no way means any justice would do anything other than laugh at it, as opposed to “considering” a case which means that the Court has agreed to hear arguments.

[Dr. Franklin]

The Chief Justice has a lot of say on the docket

Basically, he runs the show, but ultimately he is only one of nine votes of equal weight on the court. Kavanaugh and Barrett will likely determine if this case gets heard as I expect the Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas will vote to hear it, based on past cases.

[Mr Rogers]

“From what is available online about this case, someone at SCOTUS is pushing to have the case heard.”

We have no such knowledge. The people pushing this and the Gateway Pundit - in my experience one of the least reliable web sites around - is pushing it as a big deal.

The case was received. The Solicitor General didn’t bother to respond. Therefor it goes directly to conference, which does not require any Justice to say anything about it. Their law clerks will review all the cases going to conference and sometime between now and 6 Jan 2023, either a justice will indicate interest - or not. If not, it will likely be turned down without a single word of discussion.

AND I’d bet a LOT that it will be turned down, and most probably without a word being said.

[Samurai_Jack]

“This national security breach is having the same end result as an act of war; to place into power whom the Respondents want, which is Biden.”

it will never happen. There’s just as many on the other side who will contest in the other direction.

[Sequoyah101]

That has been my thought, just a manipulation to make the sheeple not lose hope or revolt. Window dressing to reality.

I gathered from all I have heard that the case was accepted but not that it just past the first hurdle and simply being considered. I doubt it can make it far. They surely are not going to hear a case for which a favorable verdict would invalidate an election. That is why this stuff has to all be done quickly and in real time. That is not going to happen either.

[philman_36]

The Chief Justice has a lot of say on the docket not to mention the sway he has with Kavanaugh. 3 rats, Kavanaugh and Roberts that’s 5 so there you go.

AH, but there is a rub. Brown could recuse in conference.
She sits at the Court by a potentially illegal procedure/process and she'll know it. They all will.
Eight votes, not nine, if that happens.

JMO, YMMV

[philman_36]

I should know NEVER believe a WORD GatewayPundit ever writes.
ROTFLOLAPIMP

Guest post by Tim Canova

[gibsonguy]

Remember
Rats never recuse rats never resign.

[gibsonguy]

Remember
Rats never recuse rats never resign.

[zeestephen]

Re: "Where do you see anything in the Constitution about certifying a Presidential election..."

12th Amendment (from memory).

The 12th Amendment was not part of the original Constitution, in case that is the point you are trying to make.

Re: "Where do you see anything in the Constitution about Presidential elections at all?"

Article II makes numerous references to Electors.

I was not writing a legal brief. I was writing a comment for a political chat room.