Posted on 12/29/2022 8:19:26 PM PST by 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.
How dare you bring logic, reason, and actual knowledge of how court procedures work, to a thread with sensational claims on FR!
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.
Re: 11 - Doubtful you will get a response, just as you have not gotten responses in the past.
Do tell. The back story is necessary.
Which remedy is that? Removal from office, without impeachment, perhaps?
Whoever...
Yes - the President or Vice President cannot be removed from office without conviction in an Impeachment Trial.
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!
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%.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you mean 'taken up' by SCOTUS instead of "granted"?
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.
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.
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.
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.