Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson vs Adams

[Aaron]

It's a long shot, and I don't think the justices have the courage to do so.

Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.

If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.​

 

[37818]

If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.

The question then would be, would such a decision be the constitutional one?

 

[Van]

I find it hard to unscramble eggs. I do not know if Florida's system for voting and counting in a timely manner has applicability for all states, but would like citizens to vote just once, and non-citizens to not vote, let alone multiple times.

 

[canadyjd]

It's a long shot, and I don't think the justices have the courage to do so.

Supreme Court Considers Taking Brunson v. Adams Case That Seeks to Overturn 2020 Election

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether it will take up a case that could overturn the 2020 elections and make representatives who voted to confirm the election ineligible to hold office in the future. The case, Brunson v. Alma S. Adams; et al, sues the members of Congress who voted against the proposed 10-day audit of the 2020 elections, alleging that doing so and then certifying the election regardless was a breach of their oath of office.

If the Supreme Court rules against Congress, it could potentially remove a sitting president and vice president, along with the members of Congress involved, and deem them unfit to hold office again at any level of U.S. government. It would allegedly also give the Supreme Court the ability to authorize the swearing-in of the rightful president and vice president.​

This will never happen. SCOTUS will never hear this case.

The Chief Justice has often indicated he doesn’t want the court to appear political. They wouldn’t hear the challenge in 2020, They won’t hear it now.

Even if they did, they won’t, but if they did, there is no constitution path to remove Biden if SCOTUS says there was fraud.

The only thing anyone can do is vote in 2024.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

The question then would be, would such a decision be the constitutional one?

That's the kicker. It wouldn't be constitutional and while the liberal judges wouldn't have an issue bending the Constitution the conservative judges are constitutionalits.

 

[Aaron]

This will never happen. SCOTUS will never hear this case.

The Chief Justice has often indicated he doesn’t want the court to appear political. They wouldn’t hear the challenge in 2020, They won’t hear it now.

Even if they did, they won’t, but if they did, there is no constitution path to remove Biden if SCOTUS says there was fraud.

The only thing anyone can do is vote in 2024.

peace to you

The case isn't about election fraud. It avoids that question altogether. The case will answer the question of whether or not congressmen were in violation of their oath of office for refusing to investigate.

 

[Van]

That's the kicker. It wouldn't be constitutional and while the liberal judges wouldn't have an issue bending the Constitution the conservative judges are constitutionalits.

Which makes me happy I voted for every President who nominated our five solid constitutionalists. (41, 43 and 45)

 

[JonC]

Which makes me happy I voted for every President who nominated our five solid constitutionalists. (41, 43 and 45)

I did as well.

 

[Aaron]

That's the kicker. It wouldn't be constitutional.

You say there's no remedy for one who violates an oath?

 

[JonC]

You say there's no remedy for one who violates an oath?

No. I'm saying the judges who are conservative are also Constitutionalists. They rightly set aside politics and decide whether something is constitutional based on the US Constitution.

The alt-right needs judges who are progressive (just as progressive as Democrats, but leaning the other way) in order to achieve its goals.

 

[canadyjd]

The case isn't about election fraud. It avoids that question altogether. The case will answer the question of whether or not congressmen were in violation of their oath of office for refusing to investigate.

Perhaps you could point to the section of the constitution that delegates investigating election fraud to sitting members of congress.

I’m not saying it isn’t there. I’m saying I’ve never heard sitting members of congress have a constitutional duty to investigate election fraud allegations.

peace to you

 

[Aaron]

Perhaps you could point to the section of the constitution that delegates investigating election fraud to sitting members of congress.

I’m not saying it isn’t there. I’m saying I’ve never heard sitting members of congress have a constitutional duty to investigate election fraud allegations.

peace to you

Maybe the source of its subpoena power would be a clue.

 

[Aaron]

No. I'm saying the judges who are conservative are also Constitutionalists. They rightly set aside politics and decide whether something is constitutional based on the US Constitution.

The alt-right needs judges who are progressive (just as progressive as Democrats, but leaning the other way) in order to achieve its goals.

Their are no alt-right judges. That's just Lib flim-flam.

 

[canadyjd]

Maybe the source of its subpoena power would be a clue.

Or perhaps the stated constitutional language that all areas not specifically given to the federal government remain the authority of the states, and the language that states govern their own elections would give you a clue the congress has no authority to investigate election fraud and the SCOTUS will NEVER agree to hear this case.

However, I can appreciate a dreamer. Maybe that’s what Trump meant when he said we needed to abolish parts of the constitution to declare him the 2020 winner.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Their are no alt-right judges. That's just Lib flim-flam.

I agree.

My point is that the alt-right needs alt-right judges to win on this one as no judge who is a Constitutionalist would side with the alt-right.

 

[Aaron]

Or perhaps the stated constitutional language that all areas not specifically given to the federal government remain the authority of the states, and the language that states govern their own elections would give you a clue the congress has no authority to investigate election fraud and the SCOTUS will NEVER agree to hear this case.

However, I can appreciate a dreamer. Maybe that’s what Trump meant when he said we needed to abolish parts of the constitution to declare him the 2020 winner.

peace to you

Are you saying Congress has no subpoena power? What has the SC historically ruled on that? It's funny that you're silent when Congress is investigating the fictitious 'insurrection' of Jan 6, but when it's suggested they investigate a true and liberal coup, you're suddenly a "Constitutionalist."

This goes for Honest Jon, too.

 

[Aaron]

I agree.

My point is that the alt-right needs alt-right judges to win on this one as no judge who is a Constitutionalist would side with the alt-right.

There's no alt right either. That's lib-speak for conservatives.

 

[JonC]

There's no alt right either. That's lib-speak for conservatives.

No.

There is an alt-right. The only people who don't realize alt positions are those in those camps (the alt-right don't think there is anything alt-right. The alt-left doesn't think there is an alt-left).

 

[canadyjd]

Are you saying Congress has no subpoena power? What has the SC historically ruled on that? It's funny that you're silent when Congress is investigating the fictitious 'insurrection' of Jan 6, but when it's suggested they investigate a true and liberal coup, you're suddenly a "Constitutionalist."

This goes for Honest Jon, too.

I am saying the constitution specifically grants the states authority to oversee their elections. The congress doesn’t have authority to investigate criminal accusations of voter fraud.

If the congress desired to hold hearings on mail in ballots, they certainly can do that. But they cannot delay a vote on the electoral college to investigate allegations of fraud and these members certainly have no need to fear they will be removed for violating their oaths, since they followed the constitution.

I haven’t been silent on Jan 6. I just don’t agree with your view that it didn’t happen.

peace to you

 

[Aaron]

I am saying the constitution specifically grants the states authority to oversee their elections. The congress doesn’t have authority to investigate criminal accusations of voter fraud.

What is the meaning of their certification then, if not that they are assured of the validity of the very thing they're certifying?

You are obviously not a Constitutional scholar. Nowhere is power of subpoena granted to the Congress in the Constitution. Not explicitly. But they have it. And you have tacitly admitted they do.

Now where does it come from?

See? You're all and good for implied powers when it serves the Left, but the Right had better make sure there's a verbatim somewhere.

[static snipped]

I haven’t been silent on Jan 6. I just don’t agree with your view that it didn’t happen.

What is "it"?

peace to you

And justice to you.