The remedy the Brunson case is asking for is not constitutional.
The Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself.
Imagine if SCOTUS could remove members of the other two branches?
Trump wouldn’t have last a second as POTUS.
Well if he's saying that Members of Congress have to remove members of Congress then yep, military....
There’s a second option, replacement by elections.
We all know how free and fair those are.
So, again.......
There’s a great system for checks and balances if the Congress becomes corrupt; free and fair elections without foreign interference.
We all know how well that’s gone the last 30 years?
Trump could possibly very legally unseat all three branches his first day in office, but the optics would’ve been terrible.
We had to be shown. The people are awakening, and the military is the only way as soon enough people are freed from the brainwashing.
The 'Q' statement saying the 'Military is the only way' is beginning to sound like it was stated to act as a 'safety valve' so that the people didn't start shooting up the place and falling into the Cabal's trap justifying a mass lock-down and gun confiscation.
WWG1WGA sounds more like what is happening in Brazil with millions of people in cities across the nation peacefully protesting against the tyrannical regime. It's been more than 68 days straight and counting.
I don't know if there really ever has been peaceful protest leading to the overthrow of a tyrannical government. If ever the success of Mahatma Gandhi, it was through the large masses of people peacefully protesting....but there was still violence. And the tyranny has since learned to plant provocateurs and svengalis within the ranks of the masses, so that violence became the reason to use their absolute violence against the many innocent to regain control.
It sounds like the corrupt media needs to be the first to fall to stop the brainwashing. I believe we are doing a fine job on this end of doing just that.
I've read this argument before and I believe it came from Tracy Beanz in an article covered by UndercoverDC called "The Truth About the Brunson Case".
To me, this is all water on the bridge at this present time. The Brunson Case is 'Denied'*... meaning its dead in the water, ab initio.
Any of us may have disagreed with Tracy Beanz' assessment at the time and many may still disagree even after the SCOTUS ruling. There's really no sense in arguing the reason because we'll never know. SCOTUS gave us one word for the reason, 'Denied'. That one word tells us you and I are both right and both wrong. I'm moving on......
It is NOT dead in the water. There are other parts to this. Loy stated that he pretty much expected SCOTUS's response.
Denied means 'denied'. The "other parts to this" would have to be completely edited and resubmitted and go through the court process again.
whatever