Posted on 02/15/2023 11:57:54 AM PST by bitt
A "rigged election" is equivalent to war since both "put into power" a "victor," argues plaintiff, and therefore allegations of a rigged election must be investigated.
The Supreme Court is set to reconsider whether to hear a lawsuit alleging President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, 291 House members, and 94 senators violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before certifying Biden as the victor on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be "fraudulently" inaugurated.
The plaintiff, Raland J. Brunson, seeks the defendants' removal from office for violating their oaths.
After the Supreme Court declined on Jan. 9 to hear Brunson's lawsuit, he filed a petition for reconsideration on Jan. 23. On Feb. 1, the court scheduled the private conference for reconsidering the petition on Friday, when four of the nine justices must vote to grant the case a hearing for it to move forward.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
Agreed.
MR has the right idea - the states need to step up to the plate.
Constitutional science fiction.
There’s only one Presidential election in the Constitution.
It takes place in December and there are 538 voters.
Biden got 306. Trump got 232. No State Legislature objected. No State Legislature convened to discuss it.
Biden was elected President. And, it’s in the rear view mirror. Trump is heading for Harold Stassen territory and I wish he would spend more time on the future.
How many army divisions does the SCOTUS have?
I am rather shocked they are hearing this case.
Please show me where in the Constitution there is any reference to a "Presidential election".
It was denied, but the Brunsons filed a Petition for Reheating, and it’s been distributed for 02/17/23 conference.
Here’s the link to the docket
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
They're not. It's just been distributed for conference, which is scheduled to take place on 02/17/23.
I thought SCOTUS turned it down afew weeks ago, but have now reconsidered?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From what I remember, they did not pick it to consider. They always have numerous cases sent to them, and they only consider a few of them as possible. And out of those, they only pick a few to actually hear. I am not using the right terminology obviously. I think it was re-filed by the Brunsons or whatever their name is, but not sure.
“four of the nine justices must vote to grant the case a hearing for it to move forward.”
What are the chances that is going to happen after they have refused to hear other fraud cases?
Correct. They filed a Petition for Rehearing, which has been distributed for 02/17/17 conference; i.e., to discuss whether the Supremes do or do not want to hear the case.
Ack! Damn my fat fingers anyway. It’s been distributed for 02/17/23 conference, not 02/17/17. Geez Louise, I am a mess.
In my opinion no chance they will take the case.
I read it how you meant it.
Anyone that gets their case kicked at conference can file a Motion for Reconsideration to get it kicked again. Very misleading hype. It is set for conference with dozens of other cases that will be denied without comment.
“I think the USSC will surprise here by hearing this.”
Hope so. Maybe the SCOTUS has seen enough of the devastation to America Biden and his crowd are doing. They didn’t nip it in the bud when they had a chance two years ago, but now they have a chance to fix it and save the country.
Many thanks! :-)
If be skeptical about the story, except that it’s coming from Just The News, and John Solomon is a serious guy.
If a president serves less than 2 years as president after already serving 4 yrs, they can serve another 4 years.
If Joe resigned, Kamala could finish out his term and then run twice more.
I don’t see that the Court would have to remove anyone, justo their JOB and rule whether or not the actions done were in the wrong.
THEN it’s on congress or whomever’s job it is to remove people to have to fess up or out themselves more by throwing it under the rug.
The court if they take the case would have a chance to do their responsibility I. n just ruling whether some thing was or wasn’t in agreement with the constitution.
no one wants them to keep overstepping their place and playing law maker.
I am not skeptical of the story. I am skeptical of the result.
Thanx for walking us thru this
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.