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

American Thinker ^ | 30 Nov, 2022 | Paul Dowling

[MtnClimber]

"The Question: How can you support, and defend, the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic? Answer: You investigate. If there are claims that there is a threat, even if you don't believe there is a threat, you investigate. How else can you determine if there is a threat unless you investigate? You can't. Were there claims of a threat to the Constitution? Yes. Where did these serious claims come from? 100 members of Congress. What was the threat? That there were enemies of the Constitution who successfully rigged the 2020 election. Is this lawsuit about a rigged election? No, it's about the members of Congress who voted AGAINST the investigation thereby thwarting the investigation. Was this a clear violation of their oath? YES."

—Question of Law in the Supreme Court case known as Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al. (Biden, Harris, Pence & 385 Members of Congress)

They Broke Their Oaths

Loy, Raland, Deron, and Gaynor Brunson all witnessed what they believed to be the theft of the 2020 election and decided to file suit. However, the interesting approach that they have taken is not to make a formal complaint that the election was stolen; instead, they have chosen to sue members of the U.S. Congress who voted not to investigate whether any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome. In other words, the Brunson Brothers were motivated to sue because these elected officials broke their oaths to protect the Constitution of the United States.

The Brunson Brothers believed that, to support and defend the Constitution, an investigation into possible fraud needed to take place. Otherwise, how could anyone know with certainty whether the election had been secure?

What shocked the Brunson Brothers was that only 147 members of the US Congress voted in support

[Hostage]

> “I have friends who are attorneys ....”

Save us both time, just hand over your money to my Venmo.

[Freedom56v2]

I don’t understand what you are saying or why being so SNARKY—I can use caps too btw...So I cannot know an attorney?

I simply asked if she has any expertise in Constitutional law. For many that would be a legit question.

Attorneys tend to look at rulings/law differently than laypeople do...

[C210N]

There is no question that the proper way to go about removal is constitutionally, thru impeachment or within a house of the legislature within their own body.

But, what happens when the system is so corrupted that those remedies are no longer viable?

Imagine if an invading army breached our borders and installed their own congress and POTUS and, yes, even SCOTUS. Now, while imagining that, tell me how the result is currently different.

[zeugma]

Answer: No. Not gonna happen. I suspect this suit will be dismissed on “lack of standing”. Could be “mootness”. same result.

[C210N]

like the jurisdictional issue of suing Congress members in your home state, rather than in D.C.

If one sues ones congress critters in your "home state" of the form of "STATE of XYZ", where XYZ is one of the 50 states, then one IS suing in the the capitol city of DC. Note the caps.

[C210N]

Even if it gets heard, no elected official will be removed from office WITHOUT a trial.

Yes, Loy Brunson et-al say so on the NinosCorner interview - this is a Civil case. A remedy would lead to Criminal cases.

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Agree, they have about the same validity as CNN.

[faucetman]

We might know today if they will take the case.

“November 30, 2022
The SCOTUS set the conference date
(The 9 Justices will meet to discuss the case and decide (by vote) if they want to move it to a hearing, where they will oficially judge the case and decide (by vote) if defendants should be removed from office)”

http://ralandbrunson.com/History/History.html

[C210N]

A conference date of 1/6 is now set.

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

[C210N]

How ironic that it is Jan 6! And, not just ironic, but appropriate.

[erkelly]

Wrong again, Canadian. Please please please stop pontificating about our constitution, you are always wrong! I cannot ever remember an instance when you were on target.
Try doing some research before you make your sweeping statements.

An illegitimate federal election in one state disenfranchises to some degree the other 49 states, sometimes greatly, sometimes minimally. The injured citizens of the other 49 states certainly have the right to redress.

In addition, it is a constitutionally mandated duty of the federal govt to guarantee fair elections in every state. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court is a part of the federal govt, and has a duty to address the states’ concerns.

Personally, I think the only way out of this is for the states to call a constitutional convention, relocate our capital city and dissolve the federal govt. Better this, than bloodshed which I fear may happen. Of course, the chance of that happening is nil.

[Albion Wilde]

Please, Lord, for the benefit of your remnant in this land, cause this challenge to succeed.

[Dr. Franklin]

A conference date of 1/6 is now set.

Officially, all that means is that one Justice listed the case for conference. Four justices are required to vote to hear the case, and five justices are usually needed to make a decision. That's the reality check.

[Alberta's Child]

Even if I was a Canadian (which I’m not), you’d still be wrong.

States take official actions that affect other states all the time. It doesn’t mean these states all have standing to make demands of each other o we these matters in federal courts. I’ve never been to law school, and I know that.

In addition, it is a constitutionally mandated duty of the federal govt to guarantee fair elections in every state.

That’s interesting. How does that apply to a presidential election when the Constitution doesn’t even require states to hold elections to determine presidential electors?

In 2020, Texas filed a lawsuit to block the electoral vote certification process in other states — on the grounds that the voting processes in those states did not conform to what the legislatures of those states had required under the law.

Meanwhile, Governor Abbott of Texas authorized the use of ballot drop boxes in Texas — in direct violation of Texas law — for the same 2020 election. So by the standards laid out in the Texas lawsuit, TEXAS should not have had its electoral votes count in the 2020 presidential election.

The whole thing is just ludicrous.

[ro_dreaming]

Texas has no standing in the way Arizona, California, New York, etc. handles their elections, even national elections.

Texas can only challenge the way Texas handles elections, in Texas.

But, this case is interesting in that if a service member fails to uphold that almost same oath, we’d get charged with treason, conduct unbecoming, etc. - while Congress-critters will almost always skate away.

But no, it will not “drain the swamp”.

[Dr. Franklin]

Texas has no standing in the way Arizona, California, New York, etc. handles their elections, even national elections. Texas can only challenge the way Texas handles elections, in Texas.

That's BS. It clearly violates the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, which guarantees a "Republican form of government". If Mexico invades Texas and runs a mock election to install a puppet government in Texas that violates the Guarantee Clause. How is that different if China hacks a national election?

[The Pack Knight]

Your hypothetical President, Congress, and Supreme Court installed by an invading army would not have been elected or appointed under the Constitution. The current President, Congress, and Supreme Court were elected or appointed under the Constitution.

If you believe otherwise, then I am not sure what you accomplish by asking the Supreme Court to also ignore the Constitution.

[Dr. Franklin]

Meanwhile, Governor Abbott of Texas authorized the use of ballot drop boxes in Texas — in direct violation of Texas law — for the same 2020 election. So by the standards laid out in the Texas lawsuit, TEXAS should not have had its electoral votes count in the 2020 presidential election. The whole thing is just ludicrous.

It's called the Administrative State. Laws and constitutions mean nothing to it. No one has any real rights anymore, including the right to a free and fair election. These people rule by legal mumbo-jumbo like "standing" and "rational basis" for things that are clearly legally or constitutionally wrong.

[The Pack Knight]

..it is a constitutionally mandated duty of the federal govt to guarantee fair elections in every state.

Where in the Constitution do you find such a duty?

[C210N]

The current President, Congress, and Supreme Court were elected or appointed under the Constitution.

The Brunson case effectively calls Treason on POTUS, congress, and arguably against itself.

I'm more of the thinking that SCOTUS will either deny cert or accept cert with plans to argue against Brunson's case. This is required for the next steps to proceed to take the country back for The People.

My point about an invading army was just to discern what's the difference in result between an obvious invasion from one that was covert - answer? None.