Posted on 12/29/2022 8:19:26 PM PST by Hostage
Long, but important read:
Supreme Court considers Brunson v. Adams Friday, December 16, 2022 7:30 PM
By Tim Canova Professor of Law and Public Finance Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad College of Law
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 Jan. 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.
Perhaps these institutional and security threats have provided powerful incentives for the Court to put Brunson v. Adams on its docket as a shield to deter any efforts by the lame duck Congress to infringe on the Court’s independence. Or perhaps conservatives on the Court are serious about using the Brunson case as a sword to remove public officials who they believe have violated their constitutional Oaths of office by rubber-stamping electors on Jan. 6th without first conducting any investigation of serious allegations of election fraud and foreign election interference.
Moreover, recent weeks have brought a cascade of news suggesting the likelihood of an impending constitutional crisis that could be difficult to resolve without the Court’s intervention.
It is now clear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was colluding with social media giants Twitter and Facebook to censor news of Hunter Biden’s laptop in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election – a most egregious First Amendment violation intended to rig the election outcome and perhaps to install an unaccountable and criminal puppet government. Meanwhile, the Jan. 6 committee may soon send a criminal referral to the Justice Department to arrest President Trump even though his reinstated tweets are a reminder that he was not calling for insurrection but for peaceful protest on Jan. 6.
More recently, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was reportedly working with Big Tech to censor election critics.
Supreme Court justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections.
When they break the Constitution — the supreme law of the land — to rig an election, the only recourse may be the Supreme Court or military tribunals.
As the Brunson lawsuit argues, all of Congress was put on notice prior to its January 6th vote by more than a hundred of its own members detailing serious allegations of election frauds and calling for creation of an electoral commission to investigate the allegations.
Moreover, the Office of Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was required to submit a report on foreign threats to the 2020 Presidential election by December 18, 2020. That deadline was set by executive order and by Congress itself. When December 18th came and went without ODNI submitting its report, Congress should have started asking questions and investigating.
In fact, DNI John Ratcliffe announced on that day that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies he was overseeing had found evidence of foreign election interference but were split as to its significance and whether such breach of national security was sufficient to overturn the outcome of the election. And yet there was no action whatsoever by Congress, no inquiry and no investigation. Instead, Congress approved the possibly fraudulent election results on Jan. 6 without asking any questions of the DNI and the Intelligence Community.
When the results of the 1876 presidential election were in doubt, Congress created a special Electoral Commission made up of five House members, five Senators, and five Supreme Court Justices to investigate.
In contrast, in early 2021 Congress had nearly two weeks to investigate before the January 20th date of the presidential inauguration. Had Congress waited even just one more day to Jan. 7, they would have received the long-awaited ODNI report reflecting a split in the Intelligence Community and the DNI’s own conclusion that the People’s Republic of China had interfered to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
As Dr. Barry A. Zulauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the Intelligence Community, concluded at the time, the Intelligence Community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6th Electoral College certification by Congress because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration. 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.
The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic – an oath also taken by Supreme Court justices and members of the U.S. military.
The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless Jan. 6 congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.
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.