Just a quick thought here:

• The some background for the Brunson Supreme Court case:

"....seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency."

"The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four justices to move the case forward."

"It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as president. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court."

(Credit Tim Canova, Highland County Press)

• Without electing a Speaker of the House, per the NYT:

"Without a speaker, the United States House of Representatives essentially becomes a useless entity. Because none of its members can be sworn in until a speaker is chosen, there are no lawmakers to respond to an emergency or a crisis, only representatives-elect."

"With no rules adopted, the legislative process cannot move forward; no bills can be passed or resolutions adopted. Lacking a speaker, the House cannot carry out its responsibility for oversight of the federal government or any other entity. The House cannot haul witnesses before committees, and those elected to serve cannot set up operations to help out their constituents. "Returning lawmakers have lost their security clearances to get private briefings from the military and the intelligence agencies because, having not been sworn in, they are not officially members of Congress."

"But legal experts doubted whether any action taken by a House without a speaker — who is second in line to the presidency — could withstand judicial review. For more than 200 years, the House has used provisions from the Constitution and from a 1789 law to form the basis for its order. According to the Revised Statutes of the United States, at the first session of Congress, the body must first swear in a speaker who then administers the oath of office to all members present, previous to entering on any other business."

"This statute, along with a precedent from March 4, 1869, provides that the election of a speaker is the first and highest priority of the House. This precedent was reaffirmed on Jan. 7, 1997, when the clerk ruled that nominations for speaker were of a higher constitutional privilege than a resolution to postpone the election of speaker until an ethics review had run its course."

Would this be THE BEST TIME to "DRAIN THE SWAMP" as they say? During the hold up, when all of these buffoons are not technically "elected" and the body only partially exists in a legal framework?

Maybe looking into the case during this time and/or bridging forward a legal remedy - from the Supreme Court that is - would apply pressure and solve some problems at THE PERFECT MOMENT in Washington.

Maybe if the SC indicates interest (or whatever they decide) could CHANGE how some of these members cast their votes as this sideshow plays on.

Dont know, i guess we shall see. But fortuitous timing for all of it, wouldn't you say?

what are your thoughts?