DJT indirectly supporting and pointing towards SCOTUS Brunson v Adams 22-380 case?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
What Congress did in 1876-77, was create a special judicial Tribunal to settle the Hayes/Tilden election dispute. It was actually a correct constitutional, legal remedy, albeit it should have just gone to SCOTUS, but understandably with a Republican favored Court, it would have appeared to be quite partisan. They did the best that could have been done, expect that there should NOT have been sitting Congressmen on the Committee (Tribunal). Even though the Constitution didn't explicitly forbid legislators from being on the Committee (Tribunal), it was certainly a breach of the separation of powers. Ultimately didn't matter because it was an equal number of Republicans (controlled Senate) and Democrats (controlled House), so that was all a was and it came down to the Justices, as it really should have been. Was just Congress trying to take power for itself since there was a vacuum. Sadly, because the people tolerated it, Congress unlawfully gave itself even more unconstitutional power in 1887.
Ok. So in your opinion, SCOTUS will throw away the Brunson case?
They should hear it, but my expectation is that they won't.
Ok. So you also believe that the relief sought by Brunson is correct. It may not happen because of other factors. But on face of it, the case has enough merit to be ruled in favor of Brunson!
It's legitimate, though we should have seen better cases from Trump, and from the Electors who had their races stolen (after all, the people vote for ELECTORS, not for the presidential candidates). Texas and the other states who tried to sue, should have had their case heard by SCOTUS, but sadly SCOTUS for whatever reason, cucked and dismissed because of "lack of standing" (legal magick), even though the states had valid standing since it was a state v. state constitutional dispute. Unfortunately, I suspect that SCOTUS won't review Brunson relying on the same bullshit basis of "lacking standing."