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
I agree that Congress has a Constitutional right to certify a fraudulent election.
On the other hand, Congress does not have a Constitutional right to imprison people who peaceably assemble to protest against a fraudulent election.
Griftway Pundit becoming today what Wingnut Daily was back during the Obama birther issue.
"Supreme Court gonna give us a do-over!"
Didn't happen then. Ain't gonna happen now.
A whole lotta FReepers got their hopes up though (as a long time resident of Planet Reality, I wasn't one of them).
Maybe they can get the AZ Crying UPS Delivery Driver to file a Friend of the Court brief.
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
Trump's team has never even claimed fraud in court, let alone proven it.
Interesting now that many things have come to light.
Yep, the process is working fine and there is, as you imply, nothing "astounding" about that process.
However, I would argue that the subject matter of the case is what is actually astounding.
Catch-22 for the Court. You hold them to their Oath of Office or break your own Oath in not taking up the case.
Not everybody will see it that way, but many will.
Since the Constitution does not mention "elections" as a method for State Legislatures to appoint the President, that's unlikely.
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.