Posted on 01/09/2023 11:32:20 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
The US Supreme Court not only decided not to look at the Brunson brothers’ case, but also decided not to take up the Bonner case challenging the legality of mail-in ballots.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
p
Thread at link below states the Brunsons will be filing a Petition for Reconsideration.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqiD2zMf/brunson-petition-denied-they-are/c/
Ha ha ha ha...suckers.
Was it one member of the Supreme Court or was there a full vote. If full vote who were the Yeas and Nays?
Well known this was a crap case brought by a couple of grifters.
Exactly- but it won’t happen.
I was happy to see young Conservative studs like Scott Pressler and Charlie Kirk say immediately after the midtermms they intend to master mail in and ballot harvesting in states where it is allowed for 2024.
All of them, since it was denied with no noted dissents
Can’t wait for the dozens of delusional threads about how serious the Court is taking this case because there is a Petition for Reconsideration filed.
Thank you for posting Tench_Coxe.
Just like corrupt Congress allegedly did on J6, the Supremes seem to be using "Hollywood absolute" state sovereignty as an excuse to ignore alleged major constitutional problems with 2020, 2022 state elections, but violations of constitutional processes that voters can understand imo.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
From related thread...
The court of public opinion will hopefully decide against the Supreme Court's handling of election-related cases in 2024 when patriots primary House members who obstructed investigation of allegations of ballot box tampering in 2020 and 2022, some justices arguably deserving to be impeached as much as Biden does imo.
More specifically, just as the J6 Congress wrongly ignored (imo) not only state non-compliance with the 12th Amendment (12A; electoral vote process), but also allegations of multiple state violations of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (14A; vote-counting fraud), the Court is now having its “J6” moment, likewise seemingly ignoring allegations of criminal violations of constitutional voting integrity safeguards.
Excerpted from the 12A:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added], ..."
"14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]".
Regarding 12A, consider that Justice Joseph Story had indicated that when corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties (my wording) divide a state's presidential voters, the states's electoral votes are clearly divided too.
"In case of any party divisions in a state, it may neutralize its whole vote, while all the other states give an unbroken electoral vote." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833."
In other words, the states surrendered their power to make winner-take-all laws for electoral votes for example, when they ratified the Constitution and later 12A imo.
Regarding Section 2 of 14A, consider that the post-Civil War congressional Republicans who drafted Section 2 made it to discourage southern Democrats (my word) from rigging the ballot boxes that Democrats are now alleged to have done for 2020, and now 2022 elections!
"Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment. This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as such states continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote." —Apportionment of Representatives
Next, “street fighter” Trump 47 and Congress need to establish an "Oath Court" based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (14A) that will have original jurisdiction in hearing allegations of abuse of government power by federal or state actors, especially alleged violations of Section 2 of 14A, Section 2 repeated below. (Maybe that's why Sections 2 & 3 are consecutively numbered?)
"14th Amendment, Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Finally, I've updated a well known adage as follows.
Inspired by 17th Amendment, the definition of insanity is electing the same career lawmakers over and over again, expecting better results every time.
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
This is not a Federal matter.
States appoint Electors. End of story.
Judge Roberts wants no part of anything that might bring Trump back. So the Supreme Court isn’t going to save you. What are we left with, the Space Force?
Was that the conclusion of a lower court or are you surmising unexpressed thoughts by SCOTUS?
Again and again the American people are being shown that neither the Congress nor the courts are going to do their jobs. And we will never get to justice through the Justice Department.
When the military finally steps in they want people to realize they are the last and only resort.
They don’t want people to know Trump won.
Owned people do things like that
Did anyone seriously believe the Supremes would consider this? It’s not worth the paper it was written on.
LOL! Methinks you've been posting here for quite some time!
If so, I'm sure you remember the multitude of Birther court cases filed during the Obama years, every last one, "THIS IS THE CASE WE WERE WAITING FOR!!! FINALLY, THE KENYAN USURPER WILL BE REMOVED, ARRESTED FOR TREASON, AND SENT TO GITMO!!!"
And they'd link to some crackpot grifter site that promised success, if only you'd donate to keep the fight going.
And every last case dismissed without comment.
Good for a great deal of entertainment and a lot of butthurt amongst FReepers but not much more.
These "stolen election" cases will be more of the same.
<> Its over very soon.<>
Many other Freepers agree.
Therefore, there is no risk for states to demand an Article V Convention of the States.
I was a lurker during the birther years. It was quite amusing seeing the true believers bash those that were giving them an accurate assessment of how ridiculous the birther lawsuits and lawyers were and correctly predicting what would happen.
7
“Therefore, there is no risk for states to demand an Article V Convention of the States.”
We can demand all we like... It will not happen. This should have been done 10 years ago. Too late now...
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.