That is a blatant lie.
The lower courts dismissed the case, and the plaintiffs appealed the case.
That is normal procedure.
Now, the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the case, which is what is up next.
I suspect the plaintiffs will come up with some weird excuse as to why the Supreme Court will do exactly what is expected with a case argued by people who have no clue about what they are attempting to do.
Well, that is not exactly correct. It got stuck in one of the lower Federal Appeals courts (10 I think it was) The one brother researched and found that you could use Rule 11 to expedite the case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court without the lower court making a ruling. Rule 11 basically says that in a case of National Emergency, rule 11 can be used to present the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though the lower court has not yet rendered a ruling.
The following video is an excellent review of the Civil Case being brought, Brunson vs Adams I believe is what the docket name given is:
Would this apply to President Trump?
I also had no idea there could be and is a Title 28 where as congress gave themselves sovereign immunity to acts of Treason during their course of duties (Sept 1966).
Had to get out my Blacks Law a few times.
BKM for later
Ping!
If the SCOTUS has the power to remove the President and Vice-President, and remove over 300 members of Congress, this would shut down the Executive Branch and shut down Congress. You would have a dictatorship because the SCOTUS is not an elected body.
The only body that has any measure of control of the Court is Congress, through impeachment, but remember, Congress is shut down.
And while we’re at it, maybe someone can cut and paste the section of the Constitution where it says the Supreme Court can remove a President and can shut down Congress.
This lawsuit is nonsense, it’s nuts, it’s just another fantasy .
Write 2 letters...CALL TO ACTION
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.
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.
Ping
The Certiorari hearing is on January 6th. Do you think maybe the court picked that day for a reason?
It will take just 4 votes to get all of the records moved up.
Thomas Alito Gorsuch Kavanaugh and or Barrett without Roberts.
The USSC has already taken the case.
It is a review of whether or not the NSA report was strong enough to mandate a Congressional investigation before certifying Joey and Giggles.
Brunson v. Adams could force 191 House members and 94 Senators to vacate their office because they failed to defend our Constitution against a foreign enemy - in this case Chinas. China clearly interfered in the 2020 election. The questions raised in the Ratcliffe report, which was requested by the House, center on whether there was enough interference to change the outcome of the election.
Half of Ratcliffe’s analysts said yes and half said no.
Nevertheless, Brunson contends that the fact that half said yes was enough to mandate an investigation as a threat to National Security. The question of a possible threat to National Security enabled the four Brunson brothers to avoid having their suit thrown out in the 10th Circuit.
The real world possible out comes could be the Court dismisses the case - possible of course but not likely since they could have done that already and NO ONE who object.
They can find that Brunson’s evidence of dereliction of duty to defend our Constitution has been established and the individuals that blindly voted to certify Joey and Giggle did in fact violate their oath of office.
In the latter event the court could use a non pro tunc order - remember they are THE USSC and can do whatever they want.
The non pro tunc which literally means “now for then” could allow a new polling of those that blindly voted to certify Joey and Giggles and have them vote again. Knowing what has now been pulled out in the open about the trashing of the Ratcliffe report many would change their vote - but would enough do so?
If a new vote is held and it is against certification Joey and Giggles would be removed from office and the as yet unknown Republican Speaker of the House would become POTUS.