Posted on 12/29/2022 8:19:26 PM PST by Hostage
THE US SUPREME COURT HAS UNWITTUNGLY PUT THEMSELVES ON TRIAL BY HEARING THIS CASE.
This case does NOT seek to prove the 2020 election was rigged and fraudulent. It seeks to expel 291 Representatives and 94 Senators from Congress on charges ranging from failure to uphold their Oaths to Treason.
To many, this case is on point. If Congress can allow a duly elected President be removed in a Coup d'Etat that subsequently installs a criminal puppet government, it stands to reason such Congress members onvolved can be removed, expelled from public office.
What's good for the Goose, is good for the Gander.
The coming Constitutional Crisis can arrive via a number of approaches. The Brunson v. Adams case can bring such crisis closer whether it wins or loses at the Supreme Court. In that context, it is the US Supreme Court that is on trial here.
Two of many money quotes from the article above are repeated here:
This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and U.S. intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of treason.
Undoubtedly, there will be some who sense this case goes nowhere, and they could very well be right.
But either way, it puts the spotlight on SCOTUS.
Bookmark
Don’t get excited about this one. Cert will be denied.
Read #2 above.
I agree with you, but it made it this far for mysterious reasons. And making it this far, puts the spotlight on SCOTUS, no matter which way they go.
False alarm. Petition for certiorari filed. The Court has not agreed to take the case and I doubt they will.
Nothing was said about Supreme Court had taken the case.
Read more carefully
There is a HEARING coming up where Justices will decide to hold a full hearing on the case.
HEARING TO DETERMUNE FULL HEARING.
This is, if my count is correct, the sixth time this has been posted. Quo Warranto writs, magic executive orders, Insurrection Act, other assorted cotton candy dreams, now this. It’s BS. It’s not going anywhere. You’d think people would learn, after the aforementioned fairy tales came to naught
That doesn't happen in a vacuum.
“Don’t get excited about this one. Cert will be denied.”
I might tend to agree, if the origin of this case were not a SCOTUS insider pulling it in to the chamber.
Don’t be so sure, the members of SCOTUS have to be as bewildered at what they are seeing as the average American...
We’re either a civil society with laws, or we are not.
This thread has several false and misleading comments.
This Petition has been dead listed and its sitting in the pile of Petitions that won’t even be touched at the January 6th conference by anyone except for one of the clerks to be instructed to put it on the CERTIORARI DENIED list in the next court orders release. Why? Because there has been no Call for a Response. For a Petition to be on the Discussion List at a Conference there would be at least a Call for Response by the Clerk. This happens anytime like this Petition that the Solicitor General’s office puts in their boilerplate Waiver on responding when they think the Petition doesn’t have a chance of having CERTIORARI GRANTED but then at least 1 Justice thinks the case ought to be discussed. Since the respondents on this Case are federal officials then its why the Solicitor General’s office would be given primary chance to weigh in for the respondents. See the docket for yourself and compare it to the dockets of petitions with CERTIORARI GRANTED and CERTIORARI DENIED to see for yourself.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
So, the question I have for anyone who thinks this Petition isn’t dead-listed is this - why has there been no Call for Response made by the Clerk of the Supreme Court?
I’ve asked this question several times in the past and got none of the Brunson case supporters answering it. I applaud their interest in trying to fix problems in the USA. Good heavens there are some serious problems with corruption in the USA federal government. I do think they are hurting their cause though by ignoring important questions like this, making exaggerations, and spreading false/misleading statements. What’s needed is integrity and forthrightness.
> Note: Canova’s article here was written before President Trump announced today that the J6 Committee had dropped their subpoena of him. This should result in not arresting him.
I am not so certain.
Take for example an seditious conspiracy allegation:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4119447/posts?page=11#11
one may argue that it is overbroad (etc), and therefore unenforceable, but a hypothetical first pass on such an indictment would be up to the trial judge. an indictment based on this would presumably come from the activist DoJ. An activist judge, riding whatever is left of the political wave, could throw the ultimate decision into the path of the SC...
(I am not a lawyer, etc)
The WAIVER, submitted by the Solicitor General, is the biggest problem with your diatribe.
“The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns...”
Rather than profound concerns, it suggests ordinary procedure, which for the vast majority of cases ends quietly with a one-line denial of the Writ.
Rule 11 acceptance doesn't put the case in the same category
as the "vast majority of cases" presented to the Court.
JMO, YMMV
You are trying to comment on the Court’s view without knowing what this court will do. In other words, speculation based on a mostly moribund judiciary. You may be accurate on the Court’s view, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is history.
So, you missed the point.
The statement of profound concerns resides in the American population as reflected in pro se filings by brothers from Utah who haven’t given up, rather they soldiered on all the way to the US Supreme Court. What would drive people to this extreme?
The point also resides with the author, Professor of Law Tim Canova, who injects thoughts reflecting the mood of the American people.
This case doesn’t matter so much as what’s driving it. The Brunson Brothers reflect the thoughts, feelings, and concerns of a hundred million others.
History is a span of thousands of years.
Historical events span decades.
Court cases span months.
This case emerges as a small effect to an enormous historical event.
In light of Madison v. Marbury, I don’t know if a federal judge could ever get his or her mind the notion that the judicial branch can force the legislative or executive branch to take a specific action, or that a federal judge has the power to remove an individual in the legislative or executive branch from government service for failing to act when the law, fairly read, seems to require that action. The Separation of Powers issue just seems to be screaming out, saying: No bleepin’ way a federal judge has that power!
...mind around the notion...
I agree. Rule 11 is definitely not the typical route a case on this aspect of the SCOTUS docket takes to get where it is.
But that doesn’t make it any more likely that the Writ in question will be granted by SCOTUS.
The members of SCOTUS have got to be remembering what happened to Scalia and the demonstrations orchestrated at their homes as they decide about hearing this case.
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.