[MtnClimber]

I wonder if the penalty could be tar and feathers.

[jz638]

I am still trying to follow the logic, but the answer to the headline query in any case is going to be a resounding no.

The swamp will not drain the swamp by otself any more than fish in an aquarium will decide to all pee in the same corner so they won’t have to swim around in and breathe each other’s filth. Even if they do, the exercise is pointless.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

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.

[Hostage]

Is this the case?

No.

Tracy Beanz lays out the facts why:
https://t.me/TracybeanzOfficial/4113

I wish it were different. Likely, this case will not be heard. For the rest of us, it’s Hopium.

But there is a case which has legs and leverage:

Missouri et al v. FJB
https://t.me/TracybeanzOfficial/4124?single

[imabadboy99]

And what is the relief requested? Re-do of 2020? Removal of Congress critters? Not going to happen (even though we all know it should happen in a just society), but I applaud the plaintiff’s for bringing it this far.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Oaths of office are not legally binding. If they were, more than half of the FedGov would be out of office and/or in jail.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...any election irregularities may have occurred that could have affected the outcome.

Aye...therein lies the rub. The escape clause if you will. The Supremes will say, there may have been 'irregularities', but affected the outcome? To that they'll say 'no'.

[Fido969]

This case is cr@p. None of these guys are lawyers. All they did was send it to the court, who sent it back for format issues, then logged it in as “docketed”. There is no way the court will hear this.

[The Pack Knight]

The odds that the Supreme Court will grant this crackpot pro se cart petition are zero.

[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]

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.

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[logi_cal869]

Hadn’t read of this case prior.

Thanks for posting.

[RideForever]

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

[zeugma]

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

[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

[Albion Wilde]

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