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.
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.