Brunson - CERTIORARI DENIED
SEE TOP COMMENT!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf
Page 5
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf
Page 5
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
That's the thing. Like the election fraud thing. Hear it in court so people think there is justice. Make people think all this good shit is happening behind the scenes. Gives the semblance that there is justice. If you kill it from the start then people think it's all rigged against them. This way people think there is a chance in the future. Always "future" is key.
This case was so bad, you wouldn't want to embarrass us by having it heard in court. I have been trying to tell people this. It is apparently a sacred cow that people have an irrational attachment to. Pointing out how there is no viable nor cognizable legal theory in his complaint is apparently reaching nobody.
No legal theory ? So I guess the constitution should be used for lining bird cages, and the corrupt politicians have all the answers.
They never made a constitutional claim. In fact, they specifically tried denying they had any federal claims at all to argue why this should not have been removed from state court. That is how totally derp these people are. No clue what they are doing. At least, from a law perspective. They appear to have been rather successful on monetizing their legal ineptitude though.
Correct. Under the Constitution, neither Congress nor President of the Senate has any explicit authority to adjudicate Electoral disputes. Thus, it's not possible to convict them of negligence for having refused to take actions not authorized to begin with.
The Electoral disputes have, and remain a judicial matter. But the Court can't make a legal ruling on a bad argument. Have to ask the right questions if you want the right answers.
the attorney general of the united states came forward and said the election was solid.