Posted on 12/13/2022 8:20:55 PM PST by bitt
Guest post by Tim Canova
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.
The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four Justices to move the case forward.
It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as President. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for Justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court. Such a course would seem to be clear violations of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that Justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” In addition to such institutional threats to the Supreme Court, several Justices and their families have been living under constant threats to their personal security since the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
....more
GP is a great site that is far ahead of most websites.
You said a mouthful. Insurrection Act. Quo Warranto Writs. Magic executive orders. And whatever Lindell was nattering on about. You’d think we’d collectively learn. Plenty of my brothers and sisters take the bait every single time. And I reject utterly the notion expressed on this thread that at least someone is doing something. If that which one is doing has zero chance of success, then you’re doing nothing
A miracle dearly prayed for.
I was a big fan of Salvage 1 back when I was a kid.
Shouldn’t and wouldn’t be requiring such a dramatic case except for the Supremes having turned down multiple legit opportunities to intervene far earlier.
This one to me is suspiciously way too easy for them to turn down now, despite the underlying merits.
>>Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election<<
Forget what you just read.
Hope it happens, but don’t hold your breath for it to happen.
Is there even a provision in the Constitution to reverse an election even if it is proven to be crooked?
We never had an invalid election because we never had a Brandon.
We should have recited that prayer when the nation accepted homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle in the 70’s. All our problems originated at that date and just blossomed out to outrageous proportions.
I’m sure cash contributions could be made to help push the project forward.
Rest assured the rats are pulling in favors and pumping cash to protect their agenda.
The more noise made will give the event traction as the people learn how corrupt America is and then have to make decisions.
My view is God will help push from his side, but as the saying goes, God helps those who help their selves.
Started before that date
Something to dream about is a good thing as long you dont let it form your reality.
Not that this is going to go anywhere, but no.
Even if Biden were to be removed (doubtful, to say the least), the De Facto Officer Doctrine validates his acts while in office.
“The de facto doctrine (aka, “de facto officer doctrine”) validates, on grounds of public policy and prevention of a failure of public justice, the acts of an official who functions under color of law even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. “
FAKE NEWS!! They are NOT considering this as much as I WISH they would!
First time I have heard about this case.
About one month ago, I started making the case at Free Republic that it is legally impossible to certify a federal election before proving - beyond a reasonable doubt - that the election was fair and honest.
I raised this issue in the context of criminal charges against at least 360 January 6th demonstrators who have been charged with obstructing a Congressional procedure, which carries up to a 20 year prison sentence.
Trump lost the 2020 election by 43,000 votes spread across three states - WI, GA, and AZ.
How many ineligible people voted in those three states?
Unknown.
How many ballots in those three states have no verifiable chain of custody?
Unknown.
I cannot prove that Donald Trump won the election.
But, Congress cannot prove that Donald Trump lost the election.
Congressional certification is not legally possible.
ALL obstruction charges against the January 6th demonstrators must be dropped!
Article I - Section 5
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."
By your standard there’s never been a certifiable presidential election.
If only Gateway Pundit was at least 10% right. Everytime I see it’s from Gateway Pundit I just shake my head......
See my No. 22. All well and good in theory. “Charges must be dropped”? The feds don’t think so, and the charges WON’T be dropped. They’ll continue to hold these political prisoners. That’s my point with this BS litigation, and your theory. My dog is just as likely to make me scrambled eggs this morning, as either of those having the desired result. Period. So why do we go down these rabbit holes?
More likely the court will just hold this case like a cocked gun until the new Congress is installed.
You misunderstand me.
My focus is the severe - 20 year penalty - criminal charge of obstruction of Congressional procedure filed against 360 protesters for January 6.
The prosecution must prove that the Constitutional right of the Congress to certify a fraudulent election takes precedence over the First Amendment right of an individual to protest a fraudulent election.
In my opinion, the First Amendment wins every time...
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."
No more than 25 individuals engaged in violence or destruction at the Capitol.
The other 335 "peaceably assembled."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.