Is this the Supreme Court case that will drain the swamp?

American Thinker ^ | 30 Nov, 2022 | Paul Dowling

[atc23]

Oaths of Office are meaningless. What, you’re saying that someone that broke the Oath is going to - what? - burn in hell or something ? That’s ridiculous

[Texas Fossil]

Thank you for the links.

Long ago, Tracy Benz and I followed each other on Twitter. She does a great job on reporting things in DC and the nation.

When she was banned on Twitter, I lost track of her. Before that happened she had attacks on her home. If I remember correctly they actually set fire to it.

Her current twitter screen name is @tracybeanz_chat

There are others there that are to confuse anyone looking for her.

I’m not sure if Twitter will reinstate her original screen name. Elon Musk is doing that now.

She is a brave and perceptive lady.

Here is a recent interview of her, from her website (https://www.uncoverdc.com/):

Tracy Beanz joins Emerald Robinson to Discuss Election Day Debacle (Nov 23, 2022)
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/11/23/tracy-beanz-joins-emerald-robinson-to-discuss-election-day-debacle/

[Hostage]

Thanks for that info and your background with Tracy.

She’s up and coming, deserves more exposure, obviously works extremely hard, puts her $$$ where her mouth is.

[The Pack Knight]

It will be summarily denied without opinion.

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress—that power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the respective houses of Congress themselves. And even if it had jurisdiction, the Speech and Debate Clause would prohibit the court from punishment members of Congress for actions they took or failed to take there.

[Paal Gulli]

Absent an action like this that succeeds, one that goes back in time and corrects the wrong of the stolen 2020 election, the Republic is done. Finito. Ceased to be. Expired and gone to meet its maker. Run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!

This is an Ex-Republic (thank you, Dr. Franklin).

[Mr. Lucky]

No, it’s not.

[taxcontrol]

Even if it gets heard, no elected official will be removed from office WITHOUT a trial. Yes it can be reasonably argued that there was treason, but until charged, tried, and convicted, there is no course of action to remove them from office.

[Dr. Franklin]

The supreme court lost all legitimacy when it refused to hear the valid complaints of Texas and other states when they were protesting the 2020 election. They said the state had no standing, what a crock.

SCOTUS refused to hear a case between the states under its original jurisdiction. It decided that the election results were a "political decision", not a legal one, and thus relied on the relatively novel and nebulous concept of "standing" to dodge the issue. Now SCOTUS may be seeking to blame the Congresscritters who failed to investigate the fraud. True, they didn't, but it was SCOTUS who first refused to hear the case.

[Dr. Franklin]

If SCOTUS wants to hear the case, they will hear the case. Otherwise, the case appears to have obvious defects, like the jurisdictional issue of suing Congress members in your home state, rather than in D.C. It appears that SCOTUS likes the idea of blaming Congress for SCOTUS refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, which it was mandated to hear under its original jurisdiction clearly stated in the constitution. As I have noted before, POTUS is also a "consul" in the original meaning of the word, i.e., the chief magistrate of a republic.

[The Pack Knight]

I don’t think it takes much analysis to figure out that the Supreme Court is probably not going to effectively dissolve Congress based on some crank’s pro se filing.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Freedom56v2]

Is Tracy Beanz a lawyer? Constitutional Scholar?

[Hostage]

Tracy lays out the FACTS.

The facts are what’s important, everything else is irrelevant.

[Texas Fossil]

She has been at this a long time. She shifted gears a few years back and they canned her on Twitter.

If you go to her website, you will see she has a real collection of writers with her now.

[logi_cal869]

Hadn’t read of this case prior.

Thanks for posting.

[Louis Foxwell]

Baskets of heads will work but it will require a mob of about 10 million enraged patriots wiling to sacrifice upwards of half their numbers.
Blood is the price.

[RideForever]

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress

Except quo warranto actions.

[RideForever]

Reading down this far, and there is not a single reference to plenary powers.

[Dr. Franklin]

The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to remove members of Congress—that power is vested by the Constitution exclusively in the respective houses of Congress themselves. And even if it had jurisdiction, the Speech and Debate Clause would prohibit the court from punishment members of Congress for actions they took or failed to take there.

Congress has the power to judge the qualifications of its members, but it cannot alter those qualifications stated in the Constitution itself. Powell v. McCormack The federal courts, however, could make a determination that a member violated a legal duty, e.g., to guarantee a "Republican form of government" and disqualify him/her from holding office. The issue here is neither speech nor debate, but rather the lack of an investigation. If the court finds that such an investigation was required, but not performed, that is nonfeasance in office, not speech or debate. Congress would not dare to seat a member if a federal court had determined that he/she is not eligible to hold office in Congress.

[Freedom56v2]

You did not answer my question.

I am assuming she is not.

She is very confident in her understanding and opinions. However, I have friends who are attorneys, and they view facts differently.

She lays out facts, but perhaps not all the facts.

I will wait for more experts to weigh in before dismissing this.