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 never said any such thing.
I simply appreciate how the law professor lays it out. Brunson means nothing to me except it reflects what large numbers of Americans are thinking.
Yes, the clerk was witnessed to have called the Brunsons several times urging them to get their cert application in shape asking repeatedly when was the soonest they could get it done.
But you say it didn’t happen, but you were not there. That means you make sh*t up.
You probably think the November 2020 Coup d’Etat of the 45th President is a conspiracy theory, don’t you?
Yes, you do.
Give you the last rant to pull more out of your butt, have at it.
MORE popcorn, please.
> “All the cases filed get a “hearing” - and the ...”
Not quite. According to attorneys experienced in these matters and former SCOTUS clerks, all cert applications are screened and divided into two piles: dead-list pile and listed pile.
The dead-list never goes to the conference hearing. The list pile does.
Brunsons were not dead-listed.
I’ll say for the umpteenth time, the fact that Brunson wasn’t dead-listed doesn’t mean their case will advance from the conference hearing.
Here’s the sequence to be clear:
1. Clerks screen cert applications.
2. Clerks make a dead-list pile and a listed pile.
3. Dead-list cases are never reviewed unless clerk is overruled by a Justice. Dead-list cases go nowhere.
4. Listed cases go to conference hearing attended by all 9 Justices who vote which listed cases will go to oral arguments and which will be denied immediately.
5. In other words, listed cases are divided into two categories by the votes of the 9 Justices:
a. those denied outright.
b. those that go to a full SCOTUS hearing.
Again:
Clerks
Cert applications dead-listed
Cert applications listed
Justices
Cert Applications listed denied
Cert Applications listed advanced
The upcoming conference hearing is where the 9 Justices vote for which cases ago to a full hearing (advanced). Brunson will die or survive there.
I do know that you think an illegally installed POTUS should remain in office, and in power, to inflict damage far more extensive than that which has already been committed, after having been convicted by the Supreme Court (it hasn't happened yet, of course) of a severe crime...adhering to an enemy.
That's bad thinking, IMO.
Sorry, it's not equal. We'll just disagree.
I do know that you think an illegally installed POTUS should remain in office, and in power, to inflict damage far more extensive than that which has already been committed, after having been convicted by the Supreme Court (it hasn't happened yet, of course) of a severe crime...adhering to an enemy.
No, it's not illegal. Sadly, Biden is President for a variety of reasons. The best chance to challenge election / vote fraud was squandered by the likes of Rudy Giuliani and Sydney Powell.
So again, we will disagree.
You’re still missing the point and your interpretation is not 100%.
Marbury is used as precedent by courts to prohibit the Executive branch from enforcing an unconstitutional law or prohibit the Legislative branch from carrying on an unconstitutional process.
The question Brunson is attempting to get before the Court is:
“Can Congress certify Electors if they have violated their Oaths of Office in doing so?”
Here’s another version:
“Can Congress certify a candidate for President without first investigating significant fraud behind the election of that candidate?
Here’s some detail worth knowing:
* A new or reelected President must be inaugurated on January 20; it’s in the Constitution.
* Certification of Electors by the date January 6 is NOT in the Constitution.
* If Electors are not certified by or before January 20, the 12th Amendment governs.
It just so happens that if the 12th Amendment had been necessary, President Trump would have won, because each House delegation gets one and only one vote.
Amendments
1994—Pub. L. 103–322 inserted “under this title but” before “not less than $10,000”.
1948. And still on the books.
The 'Blame Agent' comes out at last.
No.
They ALL go to the table. Most never get mentioned.
“the next step is to prepare a “petition for certiorari.” This is the document the Court will read in order to decide whether to hear a case. In that document, you will include a history of the case, the basic facts, and the important legal issues that your case presents. Your opponent will also have a chance to file a response, and other interested parties may file briefs in support or against the petition. Your file will then go to a pool of Supreme Court clerks, who will review all of the documents, summarize them for the justices, and include a recommendation on whether to take the case. The justices then make a final decision. If they decide to hear a case, they will issue a “writ of certiorari.” Every year, the Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions for certiorari, but only hears about 80 of them.”
“Brunsons were not dead-listed.”
Really? And just how do you know that. It is scheduled for review - as are hundreds of others - on 6 Jan. The US Government has declined to respond. Why do YOU think the government doesn’t care to respond?
Then what is the Court “granting”?
But you say it didn’t happen, but you were not there. That means you make sh*t up."
You're a liar, but that's been well-established.
You just want the punch down, I get it. Just like I did when you simply could not distinguish LifeLog from Facemash, because of your ridiculous auto-flaming, self-pwning confirmation bias, your sophistry, your solipsism.
You never cite, you never link, and when you get called on it constantly you just start flappin' them old gums.
I never get tired of how much Schadenfreude you deliver ever day, FReeptard. Thanks!
Good luck! You’re going to need it....
A hearing.
A better question, IMO, is...
Why DIDN'T the government respond?
We can't answer that, can we. We're not the government.
What we think individually doesn't matter.
What is the Solicitor General thinking? /rhetorical question
thanks, however might your response (#32) actually be for Degaston’s response (#11), not mine (#12)(?)
“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. ”
I’ve seen that suggested often here. That would make the SC pretty self serving but not concerned with fraud in the other 2 branches
CASE DISTRIBUTION SCHEDULE – OCTOBER TERM 2022
It's a good thing then that there are only 8 petitions that day instead of 80.
(scroll down, right hand side under Conference...Jan. 6)
Got it. Just checking.
Why send me this?
I don’t need any luck in this.
Apparently, my information to you was not appreciated. In that case, you can GFY and ESAD.
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.