They may be forced to do the right thing by the military! If things have to happen as per plan, it has to start somewhere. Timing is everything. Let's see what happens!
Maybe they have already decided to remove them. Maybe they are protected and in a safe place when the beans are spilled on Jan 6. That way they are out of harms way if riots start. Just a theory but possible??
You only see a small fraction of the military. You and most people have no clue how deep the US military goes and what goes on, or what capabilities they actually have and are using right now. If you expect them to swoop in and start taking over, you're a fool. That would be the worst thing for our country. Everything needs to be done legally like it or not, and that takes time. Nothing is on your or my timetable. The Brunson case is huge and if it can make it to a full hearing that will be the game changer. Brunson is a get out of jail free card for SCOTUS, and they know it. They don't have to directly rule that the dems stole the 2020 election, which is something they absolutely don't want to do, but they can rule on national security grounds. The SCOTUS has to lead the way on this, and then the military can come in and back the SCOTUS ruling and not look like a military takeover over our government.
Perhaps there are enough high-level military, who are patriots, who will have their fellow officers and superior officers put under arrest for treason.
On January 6th, they will decide if they're going to hear the case or not.
I think many people are misunderstanding and thinking that the SC has already decided to hear the case and it will be presented on January 6th.
I think there are going to be a hell of a lot of disappointed people out there on January 6th, because I sincerely doubt that they will accept this case.
"He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions"
Ruled on by the Courts when they are regularly functional. Though during time of war, which we have been in since 2001, it makes military tribunals a possibility. See MCA. Also see Graham's questioning during Kavanaugh hearing.
Thats right but SC can go forward with the case at which time the military is called to remove them. Although you and I know that is not going to happen. Originally the case did not include the option to dismiss and the SC Secretary advised they needed to add that in before it is excepted by SC. That tells me they intend to dismiss it.
When we first heard about this, sometime before Thanksgiving, I ‘ordered’ everything I could from them..I think it was 7 Discoveries …Their website. Anyhow, I brought the SCOTUS book with me on our Christmas break at the cabin. I read the whole thing one day….underlining, highlighting, dictionary right next to me - Legal terminology - it was FASCINATING!
It was WELL worth the $30+ to me. It cost them $10 to mail it to me. When I get back to civilization, I will send them that postage back. Cheers everyone! Praying this case goes through as we’d like!
I would be willing to bet, Congress and others have already started the threats, blackmail and payoffs of the Justices of the SC. Let’s see if the Justices have the backbones/ guts to hold firm knowing if they fail the SC credibility and power is null and void. No one will ever hold them in high esteem ever again.
I have zero faith that the SC will do anything at all. I appreciate those fighting the good fight and going through the motions, but I can't see them taking action.
I think the military is the only way and I even have my doubts there.
Not to burst bubbles or rain on parades, but the SC has not even decided to hear this case yet. That's what they will be doing on January 6th, deciding on whether or not to let this case be presented to them (along with thousands of others).
People are under the impression that there's a very large chance that we will win this case when there's only a teensy tiny chance the SC will even hear it.
This isn't dooming. It's just not putting the cart 20 miles ahead of the horse.
If people think that there's a good chance we will win this case and they understand that the SC hasn't decided on hearing it yet, that's fine. That's optimism. That's great, even.
But if people think there's a good chance we will win this case but they don't understand that the SC hasn't agreed to hear it yet and they don't understand that the SC only takes a very small fraction of the cases that people petition to them, then that is very, very bad. That is just a recipe for disaster. That's when people will start yelling that the SC is crooked and that they were bought and that we need to burn down the SC or some stupid shit.
So please just familiarize yourself with the basics (like if the SC has even decided to hear a case or not) before you start making wagers on the outcome.
Yes that is right. Lot of people are saying that members of Congress can only be removed via Impeachment and Courts do not have power to remove them. This point counters that and highlights the power of the Court to take action in this case!
This particular legal argument is... let's just say it's "challenging". For any Court to find someone guilty of treason when no charge of treason has been brought by the DOJ would be an unlikely and sharp divergence from hundreds of years of legal tradition. Finding a private cause of action for treason would be equally novel. And since the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over treason cases, the very most they could do is reverse the lower court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Ok. You may be right on this but my understanding is that because it is a case of national security, Supreme Court has the full authority to decide this case without sending it back to the lower court!
It seems rock solid but i think the defense will be General Barr said no interference and our noble fbi will find enough agents to say they investigated and found nothing. For national security reasons they could not disclose to the public sources and methods.
We investigated ourselves and we found nothing.
But a toke of hopium off the bong spins my mind to having patriot justices that step forward and do what is right as per the constitution. A decision giving the country back to its people enshrining themselves in our history for the ages. To be on a pedestal with Jefferson Washington and Franklin.
Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
I haven’t really looked into the Brunson case but I believe that is not a trial to prove election fraud, but rather about how Congress did not uphold their duty to perform a 10-day review of the alternate electors’ claims.
There is no such constitutional "duty" for Congress to perform a "10 day review." The Constitution does not authorize Congress with any power to adjudicate presidential Electoral disputes, except to appoint a court/tribunal specifically tasked with handling such cases. This is a judicial matter. Always has been.
Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
Ok. Your subject knowledge is good. But as a lay man, my question remains the same. What Congress did in 1876 was unconstitutional? If not, what stopped them from doing the same in 2020?
Yes, because Congress never had and still doesn't have explicit constitutional authority to adjudicate any Electoral disputes.
The Founders/Framers, unfortunately overlooked the possibility that there would be disputed Electors, at least when they wrote and ratified the Constitution. They actually realized this error very quickly, as early as January 1800. Federalist Congressman Ross foresaw and warned that there would be shenanigans by the anti-administration (anti-Federalist, "Jeffersonians") during the upcoming election of 1800.
Ross tried to get federal legislation passed to solve this issue of the lack of an explicit delegation of authority as to who would adjudicate potential disputes. Unfortunately, the effort died in the Senate. Granted, that was partly due to Adams' running mate Pinckney, who argued, CORRECTLY, the the Constitution did not give any authority to Congress to settle the issue via statutory law and violate both the separation of powers doctrine, as well as usurp the power of the states, in particular their legislatures, who under the Constitution were authorizes with plenary power over appointing presidential Electors.
Shenanigans indeed occurred, mostly at the hands of Madison, Monroe, French Jacobins, war pigs, and all with Jefferson's knowledge and approval (from the "shadows" of Monticello to avoid the appearance of impropriety). As President of the Senate, Jefferson capped of his legal coup by counting himself in even though the certificates of GA were not in the form required by the Constitution. This is the ONLY case in which the President of the Senate arguably had any authority in terms of acknowledging the legitimacy or illegitimacy of purported Electoral certificates. Simply put, the certificates presented should have been rejected because they were not in constitutionally required form, regardless of whether or not the purported votes were authentic or not. Jefferson, in following Adams previous example, though Adams acted correctly unlike Jefferson, asserted his own authority to be the sole judge of legitimacy. The problem is that nobody in Congress spoke up. And the bigger problem is that Adams didn't object until years later in a private letter (he was either slightly mistaken in his memory and confused GA with SC, or he was referring to the other bullshit that happened in SC where he was cheated). He should have objected and sought relief from SCOTUS, the only body with any valid claim to have constitutional authority to adjudicate such disputes.
This whole 1800 fiasco set up a terrible precedent of the President of the Senate and Congress establishing for themselves power the Constitution didn't explicitly give them. During the Rebellion of 1860-1865 and the 1870s Reconstruction Era, Congress further expanded their power by agreeing to rules (via resolution, not legislation) on determining whether a state was in rebellion or not, thus determining whether their purported Electors would be accepted or rejected. One could argue those were extraordinary times, but it was still an unconstitutional power grab, or rather the filling of a power vacuum, if we put the best construction on things and assume the intent was good.
It's mind boggling why SCOTUS didn't assert themselves to exercise the authority that it alone possessed under the Constitution. Then again, they can only rule on cases brought to them, and to that point, nobody ever did. Everyone just blindly accepted that the President of the Senate and Congress had these adjudication powers, because they said they did.
So in 1876, Congress at least did one thing right, constitutionally establishing an Electoral Tribunal (later called Commission). Now, they were wrong to include sitting Congressmen on that Tribunal, but again, political partisanship ruled the day. But the alternatives were far, far worse. Perhaps it was a good thing that Congress was divided, lest the Republicans held the House too and they would have supported the claim that the President of the Senate (a Republican, and NOT even the VP, since the office was vacant at the time). The Southern Democrats would have resorted to open rebellion and restarting the war if the Republicans did that. So luckily, we got the Tribunal, albeit only partly legal. The Tribunal legally issued the correct ruling that the Constitution did NOT grant the President of the Senate any adjudication power outside of opening and counting the Electoral certificates, and attesting that they were in the constitutionally required form. After that, the Tribunal correctly ruled that they could NOT "go behind" the votes as were given by the lawfully appointed Electors, in accordance with state law, federal law and the Constitution. The Dems wanted them to overrule the decisions of the Canvassing Boards in FL, SC and LA who under state law held the sole authority to certify legal votes and reject illegal ones. Those laws were valid, approved by state legislatures who under the Constitution retained plenary power to do so. Same goes for the bullshit the Dem governor in OR attempted at filling a vacancy with a Dem, contrary to OR law.
The 1877 Commission (Tribunal) gets an A for effort, doing the best they could have do given the situation. Congress gets a B for doing it rightish, except for the inclusion of Congressmen. But of course all of that good got undone when a later Congress passed the ECA 1887, securing for itself power not actually authorized by the Constitution. It's really quite sad. Legal scholars in 1877 were arguing for a constitutional amendment, and yet it didn't happen.
So here we are today, after the ECA, then it being codified into 3 USC (at least most of it verbatim), and multiple SCOTUS cases (Bush v. Gore was huge) ending a century of shit unconstitutional precedent, and reclaiming its rightful authority over Electoral dispute adjudication. Doesn't matter what unconstitutional federal statute says, neither the President of the Senate nor Congress held any authority to do a damn thing in 2020. This time, unlike in 1800, efforts were made to do bring the case to SCOTUS, who for some inexplicable reason, punted with the legal magick of claiming "lack of standing."
It was a dodge, no doubt about it. Why? Who knows. Dirt on the Justices? Threat? Instructed to do it by the presumed "good guys"? They should have reviewed the challenges, in fulfilling their constitutional duty. Hopefully they don't fail to do so again on January 6th.
But the Constitution still says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't just make shit up because it benefits what we want. That's the evil way of the leftists...
What is long overdue, is a constitutional amendment to forever settle the dispute over Electoral dispute adjudication. Until then, the only constitutional remedy is SCOTUS, or Congress establishing a lower tribunal tasked specifically to settle such cases.
Legislature makes law. Executive enforces law. Judiciary settles disputes over the law. Separation of powers. #AmericanGov101
Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
It has nothing to do with fraud. This is all based on national security, which leads to treason. Stop thinking this is about "dems stole the election by doing xyz.", it has nothing to do with that and that's why SCOTUS has given it standing. Fraud cases like you're describing have no standing with SCOTUS and will get kicked back to a lower court, like they have already.
Correct. Not fraud, but conspiratorial attacks on national security, aided by members of our government and foreign agents. We're talking acts of treason, insurrection, rebellion and war.
Exactly. Fraud in the election is not part of this at all, and it can't be. They got this far because the entire case was framed around national security. If it goes to a full 9 Judge hearing the defense will try the immunity clause bullshit which won't work in this case because in cases of treason and national security immunity does not apply. 1/6 will be huge, no doubt. I expect this to move to a full hearing and I expect it to not pass with 4 but 9.
I very much hope that happens, but I'm far more convinced it won't go to review. And assuming it doesn't, we'd again have SCOTUS refusing their constitutional duty. Which means all legal remedies have been exercised, leaving only one path left...
SCOTUS is the LAST legal avenue we have. After that, I'm sure there's a plan, but what it is I don't know, and I'm probably not supposed to know. Let's see where it goes.
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.
I would like to think the justices would do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. But I'm ok with them doing the right thing because their jobs are literally being threatened by the libs, too. Just do the right thing.
Understand that the 4 affirming votes (which this case should get) means it moves it to a full 9 Justice hearing. 1/6 is not the end, just a way to the next step.
Scotus will protect Congress in order to protect themselves. Our legal system is trash and scotus is part of that. You all know this to be true.
Remember, Scalia was murdered and the story didn't last a day. You think they don't understand?
They may be forced to do the right thing by the military! If things have to happen as per plan, it has to start somewhere. Timing is everything. Let's see what happens!
Maybe they have already decided to remove them. Maybe they are protected and in a safe place when the beans are spilled on Jan 6. That way they are out of harms way if riots start. Just a theory but possible??
You only see a small fraction of the military. You and most people have no clue how deep the US military goes and what goes on, or what capabilities they actually have and are using right now. If you expect them to swoop in and start taking over, you're a fool. That would be the worst thing for our country. Everything needs to be done legally like it or not, and that takes time. Nothing is on your or my timetable. The Brunson case is huge and if it can make it to a full hearing that will be the game changer. Brunson is a get out of jail free card for SCOTUS, and they know it. They don't have to directly rule that the dems stole the 2020 election, which is something they absolutely don't want to do, but they can rule on national security grounds. The SCOTUS has to lead the way on this, and then the military can come in and back the SCOTUS ruling and not look like a military takeover over our government.
Not if legality is unlawful, ref act of 1871.
Genocide incoming. Prepare for the attempted repeat of the history you have read.
Perhaps there are enough high-level military, who are patriots, who will have their fellow officers and superior officers put under arrest for treason.
The military is wearing makeup, congress won't worry
Actually SCOTUS may need to do this to protect THEMSELVES from Congress, since they are pushing to stack the Court and for term limits.
Yeah but this case due to the National Security issues only needs 4 votes instead of the usual 5
should be a 9-0 because of bylaws obviously broken and ignored
It goes on the table for discussion on Jan 6th of all days
Recent ThrivetimeShow
BRUNSON BROTHERS | WILL JUSTICE EVER BE SERVED? BRUNSON BROTHERS' U.S. SUPREME COURT RULE 11 COURT C
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eJk5L0u9ngJP/
Jan 6, 2023!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
Can you share the link for the interview?
Thank you!
https://americasvoice.news/playlists/just-the-news-no-noise/
That is next Friday (not the day after tomorrow). Interesting it is on a Friday!
On January 6th, they will decide if they're going to hear the case or not.
I think many people are misunderstanding and thinking that the SC has already decided to hear the case and it will be presented on January 6th.
I think there are going to be a hell of a lot of disappointed people out there on January 6th, because I sincerely doubt that they will accept this case.
Supreme court swore in a non natural born, they belong in gitmo, no one is above the law of this land. Do it for the children.
Supreme Court cannot remove them but the military can if it is for treason.
IMO, Supreme Court has the power to convict them for treason and accordingly remove them from holding office!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
"He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions"
Ruled on by the Courts when they are regularly functional. Though during time of war, which we have been in since 2001, it makes military tribunals a possibility. See MCA. Also see Graham's questioning during Kavanaugh hearing.
BINGO! That's why this is a national security case and not a case of "the Dems stole the election" which has zero standing.
Thats right but SC can go forward with the case at which time the military is called to remove them. Although you and I know that is not going to happen. Originally the case did not include the option to dismiss and the SC Secretary advised they needed to add that in before it is excepted by SC. That tells me they intend to dismiss it.
When we first heard about this, sometime before Thanksgiving, I ‘ordered’ everything I could from them..I think it was 7 Discoveries …Their website. Anyhow, I brought the SCOTUS book with me on our Christmas break at the cabin. I read the whole thing one day….underlining, highlighting, dictionary right next to me - Legal terminology - it was FASCINATING!
It was WELL worth the $30+ to me. It cost them $10 to mail it to me. When I get back to civilization, I will send them that postage back. Cheers everyone! Praying this case goes through as we’d like!
I would be willing to bet, Congress and others have already started the threats, blackmail and payoffs of the Justices of the SC. Let’s see if the Justices have the backbones/ guts to hold firm knowing if they fail the SC credibility and power is null and void. No one will ever hold them in high esteem ever again.
The litmus test was Roe V Wade. I would expect a lot of measures have already been put into motion. They're all safe.
Scalia wasn't. We sure could've used him now.
I have zero faith that the SC will do anything at all. I appreciate those fighting the good fight and going through the motions, but I can't see them taking action.
I think the military is the only way and I even have my doubts there.
BQQM!
Not to burst bubbles or rain on parades, but the SC has not even decided to hear this case yet. That's what they will be doing on January 6th, deciding on whether or not to let this case be presented to them (along with thousands of others).
People are under the impression that there's a very large chance that we will win this case when there's only a teensy tiny chance the SC will even hear it.
This isn't dooming. It's just not putting the cart 20 miles ahead of the horse.
If people think that there's a good chance we will win this case and they understand that the SC hasn't decided on hearing it yet, that's fine. That's optimism. That's great, even.
But if people think there's a good chance we will win this case but they don't understand that the SC hasn't agreed to hear it yet and they don't understand that the SC only takes a very small fraction of the cases that people petition to them, then that is very, very bad. That is just a recipe for disaster. That's when people will start yelling that the SC is crooked and that they were bought and that we need to burn down the SC or some stupid shit.
So please just familiarize yourself with the basics (like if the SC has even decided to hear a case or not) before you start making wagers on the outcome.
Brunson is making the claim that the court has this authority. This text is from his petition.
The Court has not ruled that it agrees with this argument, or even that it will take the case.
Yes that is right. Lot of people are saying that members of Congress can only be removed via Impeachment and Courts do not have power to remove them. This point counters that and highlights the power of the Court to take action in this case!
This particular legal argument is... let's just say it's "challenging". For any Court to find someone guilty of treason when no charge of treason has been brought by the DOJ would be an unlikely and sharp divergence from hundreds of years of legal tradition. Finding a private cause of action for treason would be equally novel. And since the Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction over treason cases, the very most they could do is reverse the lower court's dismissal and remand for further proceedings.
Ok. You may be right on this but my understanding is that because it is a case of national security, Supreme Court has the full authority to decide this case without sending it back to the lower court!
It seems rock solid but i think the defense will be General Barr said no interference and our noble fbi will find enough agents to say they investigated and found nothing. For national security reasons they could not disclose to the public sources and methods.
We investigated ourselves and we found nothing.
But a toke of hopium off the bong spins my mind to having patriot justices that step forward and do what is right as per the constitution. A decision giving the country back to its people enshrining themselves in our history for the ages. To be on a pedestal with Jefferson Washington and Franklin.
Is Brunson going to be a case where fraud evidence gets presented? It feels very technical and hinges more on a lack of action. But how do you determine the lack of action was negligent without some evidence?
Do the Brunsons even have the means to present compelling evidence from the affected states? Wouldn't they need to be broadly partnered to make a compelling argument?
I haven’t really looked into the Brunson case but I believe that is not a trial to prove election fraud, but rather about how Congress did not uphold their duty to perform a 10-day review of the alternate electors’ claims.
There is no such constitutional "duty" for Congress to perform a "10 day review." The Constitution does not authorize Congress with any power to adjudicate presidential Electoral disputes, except to appoint a court/tribunal specifically tasked with handling such cases. This is a judicial matter. Always has been.
Ok. So what Congress did in the disputed 1876 presidential election was not required to be done in 2020?
https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876
You already asked this question, which I already answered.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqKp8V3J/x/c/4ToiWKNkZbl
Adjudication of the presidential Electoral dispute was not Congress's responsibility because the body lacks any constitutional authority to do so. The STATE LEGISLATURES are responsible for allowing or worse instructing their executive (Gov or Sec of State) to unlawfully appoint Electors who didn't actually win. The only body with the constitutional authority to adjudicate such judicial matters, is the Court. Because no lower tribunal has explicitly been tasked with such cases, original jurisdiction lies with SCOTUS.
Ok. Your subject knowledge is good. But as a lay man, my question remains the same. What Congress did in 1876 was unconstitutional? If not, what stopped them from doing the same in 2020?
Yes, because Congress never had and still doesn't have explicit constitutional authority to adjudicate any Electoral disputes.
The Founders/Framers, unfortunately overlooked the possibility that there would be disputed Electors, at least when they wrote and ratified the Constitution. They actually realized this error very quickly, as early as January 1800. Federalist Congressman Ross foresaw and warned that there would be shenanigans by the anti-administration (anti-Federalist, "Jeffersonians") during the upcoming election of 1800.
Ross tried to get federal legislation passed to solve this issue of the lack of an explicit delegation of authority as to who would adjudicate potential disputes. Unfortunately, the effort died in the Senate. Granted, that was partly due to Adams' running mate Pinckney, who argued, CORRECTLY, the the Constitution did not give any authority to Congress to settle the issue via statutory law and violate both the separation of powers doctrine, as well as usurp the power of the states, in particular their legislatures, who under the Constitution were authorizes with plenary power over appointing presidential Electors.
Shenanigans indeed occurred, mostly at the hands of Madison, Monroe, French Jacobins, war pigs, and all with Jefferson's knowledge and approval (from the "shadows" of Monticello to avoid the appearance of impropriety). As President of the Senate, Jefferson capped of his legal coup by counting himself in even though the certificates of GA were not in the form required by the Constitution. This is the ONLY case in which the President of the Senate arguably had any authority in terms of acknowledging the legitimacy or illegitimacy of purported Electoral certificates. Simply put, the certificates presented should have been rejected because they were not in constitutionally required form, regardless of whether or not the purported votes were authentic or not. Jefferson, in following Adams previous example, though Adams acted correctly unlike Jefferson, asserted his own authority to be the sole judge of legitimacy. The problem is that nobody in Congress spoke up. And the bigger problem is that Adams didn't object until years later in a private letter (he was either slightly mistaken in his memory and confused GA with SC, or he was referring to the other bullshit that happened in SC where he was cheated). He should have objected and sought relief from SCOTUS, the only body with any valid claim to have constitutional authority to adjudicate such disputes.
This whole 1800 fiasco set up a terrible precedent of the President of the Senate and Congress establishing for themselves power the Constitution didn't explicitly give them. During the Rebellion of 1860-1865 and the 1870s Reconstruction Era, Congress further expanded their power by agreeing to rules (via resolution, not legislation) on determining whether a state was in rebellion or not, thus determining whether their purported Electors would be accepted or rejected. One could argue those were extraordinary times, but it was still an unconstitutional power grab, or rather the filling of a power vacuum, if we put the best construction on things and assume the intent was good.
It's mind boggling why SCOTUS didn't assert themselves to exercise the authority that it alone possessed under the Constitution. Then again, they can only rule on cases brought to them, and to that point, nobody ever did. Everyone just blindly accepted that the President of the Senate and Congress had these adjudication powers, because they said they did.
So in 1876, Congress at least did one thing right, constitutionally establishing an Electoral Tribunal (later called Commission). Now, they were wrong to include sitting Congressmen on that Tribunal, but again, political partisanship ruled the day. But the alternatives were far, far worse. Perhaps it was a good thing that Congress was divided, lest the Republicans held the House too and they would have supported the claim that the President of the Senate (a Republican, and NOT even the VP, since the office was vacant at the time). The Southern Democrats would have resorted to open rebellion and restarting the war if the Republicans did that. So luckily, we got the Tribunal, albeit only partly legal. The Tribunal legally issued the correct ruling that the Constitution did NOT grant the President of the Senate any adjudication power outside of opening and counting the Electoral certificates, and attesting that they were in the constitutionally required form. After that, the Tribunal correctly ruled that they could NOT "go behind" the votes as were given by the lawfully appointed Electors, in accordance with state law, federal law and the Constitution. The Dems wanted them to overrule the decisions of the Canvassing Boards in FL, SC and LA who under state law held the sole authority to certify legal votes and reject illegal ones. Those laws were valid, approved by state legislatures who under the Constitution retained plenary power to do so. Same goes for the bullshit the Dem governor in OR attempted at filling a vacancy with a Dem, contrary to OR law.
The 1877 Commission (Tribunal) gets an A for effort, doing the best they could have do given the situation. Congress gets a B for doing it rightish, except for the inclusion of Congressmen. But of course all of that good got undone when a later Congress passed the ECA 1887, securing for itself power not actually authorized by the Constitution. It's really quite sad. Legal scholars in 1877 were arguing for a constitutional amendment, and yet it didn't happen.
So here we are today, after the ECA, then it being codified into 3 USC (at least most of it verbatim), and multiple SCOTUS cases (Bush v. Gore was huge) ending a century of shit unconstitutional precedent, and reclaiming its rightful authority over Electoral dispute adjudication. Doesn't matter what unconstitutional federal statute says, neither the President of the Senate nor Congress held any authority to do a damn thing in 2020. This time, unlike in 1800, efforts were made to do bring the case to SCOTUS, who for some inexplicable reason, punted with the legal magick of claiming "lack of standing."
It was a dodge, no doubt about it. Why? Who knows. Dirt on the Justices? Threat? Instructed to do it by the presumed "good guys"? They should have reviewed the challenges, in fulfilling their constitutional duty. Hopefully they don't fail to do so again on January 6th.
But the Constitution still says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say. We can't just make shit up because it benefits what we want. That's the evil way of the leftists...
What is long overdue, is a constitutional amendment to forever settle the dispute over Electoral dispute adjudication. Until then, the only constitutional remedy is SCOTUS, or Congress establishing a lower tribunal tasked specifically to settle such cases.
Legislature makes law. Executive enforces law. Judiciary settles disputes over the law. Separation of powers. #AmericanGov101
Ok. Thanks for the explanation! I remember you had earlier mentioned that the case should be decided in favor of Brunson but will probably not be because of other factors. If Congress did not have authority on the issue and the 388 defendants can claim that to defend themselves, then on what basis can the Supreme Court rule in favor of Brunson assuming they are not influenced by other factors?
I should also add that even professors who are teaching law such as Tim Canova are supporting the Brunson case!
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/tim-canova-supreme-court-considers-case-seeking-overturn-2020-presidential-election/
That was not a very respectful comment. You should follow the site rules.
It has nothing to do with fraud. This is all based on national security, which leads to treason. Stop thinking this is about "dems stole the election by doing xyz.", it has nothing to do with that and that's why SCOTUS has given it standing. Fraud cases like you're describing have no standing with SCOTUS and will get kicked back to a lower court, like they have already.
Correct. Not fraud, but conspiratorial attacks on national security, aided by members of our government and foreign agents. We're talking acts of treason, insurrection, rebellion and war.
Exactly. Fraud in the election is not part of this at all, and it can't be. They got this far because the entire case was framed around national security. If it goes to a full 9 Judge hearing the defense will try the immunity clause bullshit which won't work in this case because in cases of treason and national security immunity does not apply. 1/6 will be huge, no doubt. I expect this to move to a full hearing and I expect it to not pass with 4 but 9.
I very much hope that happens, but I'm far more convinced it won't go to review. And assuming it doesn't, we'd again have SCOTUS refusing their constitutional duty. Which means all legal remedies have been exercised, leaving only one path left...
SCOTUS is the LAST legal avenue we have. After that, I'm sure there's a plan, but what it is I don't know, and I'm probably not supposed to know. Let's see where it goes.
IMO, DJT/White Hats are the one running the show behind the scenes and they have all the means!
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZXet46rq/scotus-brunson-v-adams-22380-cas/
It's been my contention that evidence of election fraud has to be presented, and proven, along with proving that the House members knew of it, in order for them to be held negligent in going through with validation of the election. So, even if they lose the case on the grounds of the Reps saying, "we didn't know", the proof of election fraud will be made public.
Any gambling sites taking bets on this? I'm sure the House position would be that nothing will happen.
I would like to think the justices would do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. But I'm ok with them doing the right thing because their jobs are literally being threatened by the libs, too. Just do the right thing.
Is this just kicking the can down the road??
Odds are against the brothers but all we need is 4 of the Justices to rule in favor.
Understand that the 4 affirming votes (which this case should get) means it moves it to a full 9 Justice hearing. 1/6 is not the end, just a way to the next step.