The US Supreme Court Case that Could Change Everything
From the website ralandbrunson.com, updated as of November 23, 2022 Background ~ Loy, Raland, Deron and Gaynor Brunson (the brothers) witnessed the 2020 election along with claims from members of c…
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.
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.