The article has valid points but I do think that it missed 1 or 2 critical points such as:
I totally understand that SCOTUS does not have power to remove congress members and sitting president as per normal procedure. But what the article missed was that voter fraud or rather aiding voter fraud which is the main allegation in Brunson case comes under treason which gives authority to SCOTUS to remove all these members and is covered under the constitution. The article never discussed this point which is unique to this case.
Conference date of 1/6 instead of keeping the conference and dismissing it on 12/2 or 12/9, which is odd, especially if SCOTUS just wants to dismiss the case without making any noise.
That is a different argument altogether. I am not saying that SCOTUS will accept this case. But, IMO, this case has merit which this article fails to acknowledge!
"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"
That is true. But I think the military, not some civilian, will have to bring the case forward. There will be a commission to investigate and then a trial before the court. There is a possibility that the Brunson case will be bought before a FISA court by order of John Roberts, but SCOTUS will not willy-nilly remove 350 plus members of congress and the President due to voter fraud.
With national security at play, SCOTUS will never act in this case without the support of the Military. But I don't think a separate case needs to be filed. I guess things will become more clear by Monday!
The article has valid points but I do think that it missed 1 or 2 critical points such as:
I totally understand that SCOTUS does not have power to remove congress members and sitting president as per normal procedure. But what the article missed was that voter fraud or rather aiding voter fraud which is the main allegation in Brunson case comes under treason which gives authority to SCOTUS to remove all these members and is covered under the constitution. The article never discussed this point which is unique to this case.
Conference date of 1/6 instead of keeping the conference and dismissing it on 12/2 or 12/9, which is odd, especially if SCOTUS just wants to dismiss the case without making any noise.
Anyways, I guess we will know soon!!
https://greatawakening.win/p/16ZqPbSu6I/scotus-brunson-v-adams-22380-cas/
The key you are missing is that this case has been dismissed at every level and will likely be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
That is a different argument altogether. I am not saying that SCOTUS will accept this case. But, IMO, this case has merit which this article fails to acknowledge!
What is the clause in Article three that gives the SCOTUS the power to remove sitting members of congress or the President for treason?
If the court had that power, then Ken Paxton can revive his old 2020 lawsuit and file that with the court on behalf of Texas against other states.
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"
That is true. But I think the military, not some civilian, will have to bring the case forward. There will be a commission to investigate and then a trial before the court. There is a possibility that the Brunson case will be bought before a FISA court by order of John Roberts, but SCOTUS will not willy-nilly remove 350 plus members of congress and the President due to voter fraud.
With national security at play, SCOTUS will never act in this case without the support of the Military. But I don't think a separate case needs to be filed. I guess things will become more clear by Monday!