I think people who are opposing this case are looking at it from purely procedural point of view and this is not how Supreme Court does things.
Others who are supporting the case are looking at it from national importance point of view.
Read this article below from a professor teaching constitutional law:
Also, check this video of a constitutional law expert explaining the complaint filed in the Brunson case in detail:
As per allegations in the complaint (which is being explained in this above video), there are 31 states that have violated election laws. I don't think there is any other Court which can decide this issue other than SCOTUS?
The people opposing this case may be right that based on past history, SCOTUS will not get involved in this case. But IMO, if they want to get involved, they have full authority and jurisdiction to take action in this case!
Let's see what happens!
The Brunson thrust is not to overturn the 2020 election, they are asking the SC to in essence look at the complaint that a Congress was derelict in their duty. They did not uphold the oath they took to protect us from interference both foreign and domestic. 100 members of Congress requested a 10 day pause to investigate allegations and over 380 members declined. Those members represent a treasonous act.
The bottom line is Congress had an obligation to investigate allegations of election fraud within a given time frame. Congress could then have certified the election results sent by the respective States.
So it is entirely possible the SC may vote in the conference for the case to proceed and to be heard.
I do not think that one should confuse "not being optimistic about the SC taking the case" with "dooming." The important thing is that credible evidence of election fraud has been submitted under penalty of perjury for public scrutiny. The recognition of the evidence will have its effect on the public even if the court case is quashed.
Q said lawsuits work. I can attest that they do work, even if you do not "win" the case.
I recently completed a lawsuit against the State of California's income tax agency where I alleged they were running two embezzlement/racketeering schemes and third racketeering scheme. The State of CA never denied my allegations. They pretended as if I had made completely different arguments and claimed I had never submitted any evidence or legal codes. The judge went with the State's arguments and rejected all of my evidence on technicalities. Proof: https://gwsandiego.net/blog/?cat=25
Even though I "lost," the case was worth the effort. The State never denied the allegations; they evaded them. In CA, failure to deny constitutes admission of truth. That gives a lot of traction to me and others to fight the State in other venues, or even to file another court case.
All of the evidence of the criminal schemes has been submitted under penalty of perjury. The State of CA never denied any of the evidence was valid; they kept insisting I didn't submit any!!!! The reality is that much of the evidence had been submitted by the State themselves and I simply highlighted the accounting fraud and then resubmitted it with the highlights.
While the judge may have chosen to ignore the evidence, it is still evidence that can be used by me other people/organizations in other capacities.
I have been putting a lot of pressure on legislators to intervene to stop the schemes. Before the court case, the legislators mocked me for thinking the agency was running a criminal scheme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUenmd6YHZE&list=PLAkSTXk9sO0GfbvJOQIEOesJ-3IODh9vJ&index=11.
Now that I send them court documents, they take me seriously.
Might be a good time to announce you would never self abort either!!
;) At the bottom of several posts, I wrote that I am not suicidal, don't use drugs, don't drink much, am a careful driver, etc...
Let's hope the patriotic ones at SCOTUS do see the need to get involved.
We’ll know for sure which members are patriotic and which are traitors soon enough.
nope. Lurk MOAR.
The Brunsons are arguing that those who voted against further investigation of the 100+ complaints ignored their OATH of office, which is to protect the constitution. THAT is what SCOTUS must consider.
There's a reason President Trump got 3 justices on. The leak of RvW was to show the cabal they have control of the court
This would be a modern day "David vs Goliath"
[T]he problem we currently encounter with Professors who Attempt to teach Constitutional Law is that most of them have never gone through the Constitution with a fine toothed comb, aka a Dictionary made for those times...
I have and I enjoy destroying their illusions, as they mostly work off of other peoples writings and opinions, whereas I'm working purely off of the actual meanings of the words written IN the constitution, and am not using a ?NEW Dictionary, but the OLDEST I can find, such as a Bouviers 1856, specifically designed for that one thing, the U.S. Constitution....
Others try, they use Websters, or Blacks, and some others that tried but still messed up the actual Definitions of many words because the did not have a good grasp of the actual meanings of the words....
But Bouviers did, and he worked it with teams of people on each word, to distill the actual meanings of each word....
This is probably very well what Brunson is running into with SCOTUS....