Not yet, and given how things have panned out with them to date, I’m not holding my breath.
However… the basis of this is on constitutional grounds, and not election fraud — Rule 11. That gives me slightly more hope that they’ll agree to hear it. They would likely remand the case to the lower court.
Indeed, this is a procedural, Constitutional matter. However, I think his argument about Congress being required to hear, investigate and rule on objections, is a weak one to make, especially given that Congress has no Electoral adjudication power under the Constitution. Doesn't matter what 3 USC (fka the ECA 1887) says if the statute itself is unconstitutional. The real criminals liable here, are the state officials who certified unlawful elections and illegally appointed Electors who didn't actually win any elections, and the judges who have refused to adjudicate the cases challenging the unlawful elections.
As to whether review will be granted, I highly doubt it. SCOTUS will argue "lack of standing." The legitimate plaintiffs are the Electors who had their elections stolen (not Trump, technically). Unfortunately, because SCOTUS wrongly ruled in Chiafalo, precedent has been set that will destroy our Electoral system unless remedied.
That is what I thought as well but it seems anything is possible.
At the time Jay Sekolow argued that this could go either way and set a precedent. And it did set a precedent which I think has caused a lot of difficulty moving forward due to how the SC ruled at the time.
They skipped the 10th circuit filed under national emergency, got a call from the Supreme Court clerk 5 days later. Subsequently the 10th circuit backed up the decicion
All things point to it’s a go if they get 4 of 9 justices to agree
A lot of momentum and timing is everything the SC has an axe to grind and this gives them carte Blanche.
As I said, until SCOTUS grants review, it's a nothingburger. If they do, well then perhaps it's something. Until then... it should be taken as Kraken 2.0
Looks like the argument was basically, it’s a frivolous case and should be tossed. However, it’s now in the SCOTUS so, that to me means, it’s not frivolous and has merit. Enough for them to hear.
Looks like the argument was basically, it’s a frivolous case and should be tossed. However, it’s now in the SCOTUS so, that to me means, it’s not frivolous and has merit. Enough for them to hear.
It’s on the docket, but that just means that Brunson filled out the form and mailed it to the right address. No one has gotten around to looking at it yet.
The waiver is just the solicitor general saying that the arguments that led to the lower courts dismissing the case as frivolous have already been adequately argued before those courts. There’s nothing more to say unless SCOTUS rules that the lower courts got this wrong…. and then the most likely outcome is that they will send the case back down to the lower court.
I’m super intrigued by this — just found out about it yesterday.
More resources:
Realist News. Supreme Court takes the critical election case https://youtu.be/TdhjyUFEn3M
Writ of cert filing: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221027152243533_20221027-152110-95757954-00007015.pdf
Did SCOTUS actually grant review? Until they do, this is a nothingburger.
Not yet, and given how things have panned out with them to date, I’m not holding my breath.
However… the basis of this is on constitutional grounds, and not election fraud — Rule 11. That gives me slightly more hope that they’ll agree to hear it. They would likely remand the case to the lower court.
Indeed, this is a procedural, Constitutional matter. However, I think his argument about Congress being required to hear, investigate and rule on objections, is a weak one to make, especially given that Congress has no Electoral adjudication power under the Constitution. Doesn't matter what 3 USC (fka the ECA 1887) says if the statute itself is unconstitutional. The real criminals liable here, are the state officials who certified unlawful elections and illegally appointed Electors who didn't actually win any elections, and the judges who have refused to adjudicate the cases challenging the unlawful elections.
As to whether review will be granted, I highly doubt it. SCOTUS will argue "lack of standing." The legitimate plaintiffs are the Electors who had their elections stolen (not Trump, technically). Unfortunately, because SCOTUS wrongly ruled in Chiafalo, precedent has been set that will destroy our Electoral system unless remedied.
How do constituents, and legal voters, not have standing to demand their representatives investigate a matter?
That is what I thought as well but it seems anything is possible.
At the time Jay Sekolow argued that this could go either way and set a precedent. And it did set a precedent which I think has caused a lot of difficulty moving forward due to how the SC ruled at the time.
From the article of OP
"He already had experience with the SCOTUS by bringing two petitions to them, both of which were denied....."
Nothing burger.
Surprised you weren't banned for pointing out the obvious.
A god... not THE God...
https://youtu.be/6VF5P7qLaEQ
Strike me down...
https://youtu.be/iVBX7l2zgRw
I must have guardian 👼🏻
Not a nothingburger at all.
They skipped the 10th circuit filed under national emergency, got a call from the Supreme Court clerk 5 days later. Subsequently the 10th circuit backed up the decicion
All things point to it’s a go if they get 4 of 9 justices to agree
A lot of momentum and timing is everything the SC has an axe to grind and this gives them carte Blanche.
Listen to both videos
Super excited
As I said, until SCOTUS grants review, it's a nothingburger. If they do, well then perhaps it's something. Until then... it should be taken as Kraken 2.0
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
What does this mean? https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/247457/20221123155305329_Waiver%20Letter%20-%2022-0380.pdf
Did they waive the right to respond because it garbage and they’re not wasting their time? Or they have no response because there’s no way out of it?
Wish I was an attorney but in their filing for the tenth circuit court: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/243739/20221024152923186_20221024-152524-95757879-00000747.pdf
Looks like the argument was basically, it’s a frivolous case and should be tossed. However, it’s now in the SCOTUS so, that to me means, it’s not frivolous and has merit. Enough for them to hear.
Interesting event timeline: https://ralandbrunson.com/
Appears to have been started June 21, 2021
They answer my question and the waiver filed was the door opening for this to go to the SCOTUS.
Okay, this is interesting now.
Start at about the 12:00 mark (sorry for the Santa Surfing link, but I haven’t tried yet to find the original podcast)
This 15 min clip of the podcast discusses the case in greater length
https://rumble.com/v1wbwre-11212022-affirmation-scotus-case-brunson-shares-insight-libs-triggered-news.html
Thanks, fren.
Thanks for the link!
Anyone can file a petition for writ of certiorari.
Doesn’t mean it’ll be granted.
SCOTUS has not granted writ for this yet.
It’s on the docket, but that just means that Brunson filled out the form and mailed it to the right address. No one has gotten around to looking at it yet.
The waiver is just the solicitor general saying that the arguments that led to the lower courts dismissing the case as frivolous have already been adequately argued before those courts. There’s nothing more to say unless SCOTUS rules that the lower courts got this wrong…. and then the most likely outcome is that they will send the case back down to the lower court.
He got a call from the clerk of the court 5 days after skipping the 10th circuit under national emergency - rule 11.
Later the 10th circuit backed him up.
4 of 9 justices need to agree to hear the case
It Glows.