Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court considers Brunson v. Adams (Supreme Court on Trial; Yes, Supreme Court)
The Highland County Press ^ | December 16, 2022 | Tim Canova

Posted on 12/29/2022 8:19:26 PM PST by Hostage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
To: Hostage

I recall that we had these kinds of lawsuits come up when obama was president. the lawsuits contested his citizenship or various aspects of his eligibility.

The cases were brought before the supreme court for consideration as to whether to make a ruling on them.

The supreme court decided not to make a ruling on those cases during obama’s tenure. They will decide not to make a ruling on this case as well.


21 posted on 12/30/2022 3:40:15 AM PST by ckilmer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Degaston

How dare you bring logic, reason, and actual knowledge of how court procedures work, to a thread with sensational claims on FR!


22 posted on 12/30/2022 3:56:59 AM PST by GreenLanternCorps (Hi! I'm the Dread Pirate Roberts! (TM) Atsk about franchise opportunities in your area.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: j.havenfarm

Re: 8 - Agreed. And one of Brunson’s proposed remedies violates the U.S. Constitution.

Not one person will take a bet on this being granted cert. But why would they - it’s a flawed filing.


23 posted on 12/30/2022 4:03:34 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Degaston

Re: 11 - Doubtful you will get a response, just as you have not gotten responses in the past.


24 posted on 12/30/2022 4:10:00 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fury
And one of Brunson’s proposed remedies violates the U.S. Constitution.

Do tell. The back story is necessary.
Which remedy is that? Removal from office, without impeachment, perhaps?

Whoever...

25 posted on 12/30/2022 4:14:05 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Yes - the President or Vice President cannot be removed from office without conviction in an Impeachment Trial.


26 posted on 12/30/2022 4:33:14 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

I hope this one is approved and goes full-headline all the way. Maybe I’m dreaming, but I think it’s long past time for America to start healing, and the Supremes still have enough gravitas and clout to get things done.

Let the fur fly!


27 posted on 12/30/2022 5:42:36 AM PST by DNME (… all experience hath shewn ….)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Degaston
why has there been no Call for Response made by the Clerk of the Supreme Court?

Why would there be a Call for Response if the case hasn't been accepted yet? This isn't a party vs party, this is Congress / Administration vs We the People. Over 300 defendants. A Call for Response is not required, but the odds of a case being taken up goes from 1% to 5%.

28 posted on 12/30/2022 8:13:59 AM PST by RideForever (Damn, another dangling par .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Degaston

My understanding is that the attorneys for the defence have notified the court that they do not plan to mount a defense so there has been no response. That in and of itself is very strange. If true the Court does not have to have oral arguments and can simply decide the case amongst themselves based on the pleading.

Personally I wouldn’t bet money on this case being heard. But I do think the court put it on the docket for conference as a defensive weapon in case the lame duck Congress tried to Institute term limits. That threat goes away Jan 3rd. So on Jan 6th it will likely be rejected. Although it would be the perfect way to kick this criminal cabal out of power. Otherwise at some point the military is going to have to step in.


29 posted on 12/30/2022 8:36:43 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey; All
> "In light of Madison v. Marbury .....

You meant Marbury v. Madison.

For those reading, Marbury v. Madison is a case more than 200 years old that set precedent allowing American courts to engage in judicial review. That means, a court can review laws and statutes for concordance with the Constitution. Unconstitutional laws can be nullified, stricken by courts. Those that disagree can appeal, but they can't argue that a court is prohibited from setting aside what is deemed unconstitutional.

The Brunson case, as radical as it may seem, IS NOT challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election.

The Brunson case is challenging Members of Congress charged with violating their Oaths of Office by not investigating voluminous evidence and witness of massive election tampering.

Now that more than half of the American population are in agreement that the 2020 election is highly suspect, the Brunson case and all American history to follow, are putting the courts in the spotlight. It has become a prominent thought in collective consciousness that courts are part of the enemy to those that call for answers and refuse to move on from 2020.

Law Professor Tim Canova, who wrote the source article, hits the bullseye with his mention that Justices are on high alert as a result of ongoing threats to themselves and their families as a result of overturning Roe. It follows therefore, Justices and their clerks are keyed to the deteriorating mood of the American populace, not in fear of bodily harm, but in losing allies against those that threaten them physically. In short, Justices can't afford at this stage in history to ignore the Will of the American people. The Justices, in all probably, will remain safe, but the constant fear and discomfort of the times, and the continuance thereof, will affect their thinking and that of their clerks.

But they may hand wave away the radical case of Brunson. They may ignore history enfolding, hoping like many us that normality will return (normalcy bias).

What they are asked to do is to question whether elected members of Congress can violate their Oaths in matters of dire national security and get away with it.

Is the "Sovereign Immunity" defense inviolate? In many such cases, courts will rule that the remedy to dealing with criminal political factions, the remedy is elections; "Vote them out!"

But that remedy is now in question. Regardless of what happens in Brunson, that question will remain and expand. Law Professor Tim Carnell makes it so clear:

Here's the logical option flow:

1. Brunson cert is denied.
2. Brunson cert is granted.

If option 1 occurs, as is probable, the mood and anger of the American people will worsen and grow.

If, and it's a big if, option 2 is pursued, not only will SCOTUS be in the spotlight, the spotlight will be so glaringly bright, it will shine across the nation and the world.

We can imagine under option 2 that SCOTUS might ... maybe ... possibly ... in a long shot, order elected members to respond directly, positing something along the line:

Possibly, not probably, but possibly option 2 will lead to a settlement that Members of Congress will do their duty to investigate the 2020 election.

This is why so many people, including prominent persons, are saying Brunson has the potential to decertify the 2020 certification of Electors and all that entails.

This helps understand why President Trump strangely called for changes to the Constitution weeks ago.

The Nation is in extreme danger, but the danger is so slow moving and cameo, that Americans will be, on one day, ready to exercise Colonel George Mason's prescient inclusion of Article V, and on the next day, return to an eery normal.

30 posted on 12/30/2022 9:04:31 AM PST by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Marbury is also a Separation of Powers case.

Ultimately the Judicial branch held that it could not compel the executive branch to take a particular action seemingly required by law.


31 posted on 12/30/2022 9:11:38 AM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SteveH
Ok, it's evident you've done some study, and you've picked up some valid points, but you're missing crucial procedural steps.

The "dead" list you mention comprise those cases that clerks excluded for the upcoming conference with attendance of all nine Justices.

The Brunson case was not excluded.

Supreme Court clerks screening through all the cases arrived at a list of cases that will be reviewed at the upcoming conference hearing. Brunson is one of those cases. Cases not included are described as dead-listed. Brunson is not dead-listed, but may be dropped at the January 6, 2023 conference.

There are confirmed reports that SCOTUS clerks saw the Brunson filing, and called and called in urgent fashion for Appellant to provide additional materials and changes to make the Brunson cert application conform for listing. That's significant, because a clerk could have simply rescheduled Brunson for later conferences pending Brunson getting its filing in proper shape.

See #30 above.

32 posted on 12/30/2022 9:28:06 AM PST by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey

The court will consider, if they don’t ignore or drop Brunson, the issue of Sovereign Immunity.

If SCOTUS *possibly* rules Sovereign Immunity is not a defense in a clear breach of Oath amidst mountains of fraud and malfeasance, then Marbury stands but in reduced scope as excluded in cases of such fraud and malfeasance. If this arises, SCOTUS will need to carefully specify the parameters where Marbury is reduced.

As President Trump made aware, the Constitution never foresaw situations as presented in the here and now.

This is a multi-year historical event in progress that will continue regardless of Brunson or no Bronson. Justices know thus.


33 posted on 12/30/2022 9:40:02 AM PST by Hostage (Article V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fury
As I said...Whoever...Due to the uniqueness of this case, the trial court does have proper authority to remove the Respondents from their offices under 18 U.S. Code § 2381 which states “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned no less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. ” A court adjudicating that the Respondents, who have taken the Oath of Office, to be incapable of holding their offices or who have adhered to a domestic enemy, means nothing without such removal of office. You can cry all you want, the law says "Whoever", not whoever minus the POTUS.
34 posted on 12/30/2022 10:07:38 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
My understanding is that the attorneys for the defence have notified the court that they do not plan to mount a defense so there has been no response.

There is ONE attorney now, the Solicitor General, and her WAIVER was the response.
It goes to the Conference unopposed. The opportunity to present an opposing brief, to file for a delay...anything...is gone.

35 posted on 12/30/2022 10:27:56 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey
But that doesn’t make it any more likely that the Writ in question will be granted by SCOTUS.

Did you mean 'taken up' by SCOTUS instead of "granted"?

36 posted on 12/30/2022 10:58:41 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"There are confirmed reports that SCOTUS clerks saw the Brunson filing, and called and called in urgent fashion for Appellant to provide additional materials and changes to make the Brunson cert application conform for listing. That's significant, because a clerk could have simply rescheduled Brunson for later conferences pending Brunson getting its filing in proper shape."

That would be a leak on a par with the unauthorized release of Dobbs v Jackson via criminal espionage on May 2, and fly completely in the face of actual confirmed reports of the SCOTUS security investigation and subsequent lockdown of internal draft policies by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley.

So, what you allege did not happen. It's just that simple, and Brunson will be simply denied cert without explanation on Jan. 23, 2023. shortly after 9:30am.

37 posted on 12/30/2022 11:03:44 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Tanned, rested, and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
BTW, you claim to keep such close tabs on Brunson, and yet you missed "New California State"'s hilarious Amicus filing this week! Why I reckon it's a cinch to be heard now...
38 posted on 12/30/2022 11:08:58 AM PST by StAnDeliver (Tanned, rested, and ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

NOT AGAIN! It won’t even be discussed on 6 January. They won’t debate it or pay any attention to it. It isn’t “unexpected” that it gets a “hearing”. All the cases filed get a “hearing” - and the vast majority never get a single word of talk.

There is a reason the government has not filed a response to this case.


39 posted on 12/30/2022 11:13:14 AM PST by Mr Rogers (We're a nation of feelings, not thoughts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
You can cry all you want, the law says "Whoever", not whoever minus the POTUS.

LOL! If you think that 18 U.S. Code § 2381 is superior to the removal provisions of the U.S. Constitution for the President and Vice-President, than nothing anyone writes is going to register with you.

40 posted on 12/30/2022 11:14:13 AM PST by Fury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson