Distributed for conference. Just so we're aware.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
Comments (21)
sorted by:
there is something to this case.
every time I read a news story on a patriot website that says this is bunk
it has to be hitting a nerve
Even Newsweek is covering it: https://greatawakening.win/p/16aAN80i1g/newsweek-covers-brunson-case/c/
I wasn't thinking of clicking the link.
Since I have read that the case likely will never be either heard or won, I must wonder why a mainstream news outlet is covering it.
Of course, what I read could be wrong. Lets see what happens.
It’s bunk.
Brunson is asking the SCOTUS for a remedy that will go against the constitution.
There are only two legal ways to unseat an elected member of Congress, and SCOTUS is not one of them.
This case is BS because the remedy is BS.
Sorry 3 ways; death will also unseat a member indirectly.
So either the voters unseat you, or the Congress itself unseat a member.
The same goes for POTUS, SCOTUS can never unseat the president.
Conviction of treason and subsequent death penalty
False.
14th Amendment, Section 3 can make a person ineligible for office, which would effectively unseat them.
The other listed methods are political and procedural. 14th Amendment, Section 3 is not. It goes to eligibility, which is the law.
To see it any other way would mean that the Oath of Office effectively means nothing, as there would be no lawful method to implement it, which cannot be the case. People voting is political. Congress voting is procedural. Court order is lawful.
Except the case isn’t asking the SCOTUS To judge if the members of Congress have been “ engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof”
Yes, it is.
Check out the plaintiff's discussion about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUqK6e0QOqY
I agree with the bunk part, however, in order to move on to the next argument, the current argument must be exhausted so people won't want to return to it.
I haven't really thought about that statement above before. Exhausting the argument, came from a Vatican awarded philosophy teacher at a university.
Of course the guy who said it doesn't get qualified just because he worked for the Vatican. I would have been happy hearing it from a comic book character.
What does “distributed for conference” mean? Just so I’m aware.
"Distributed for conference" is a term used in the context of the United States Supreme Court to indicate that a case has been scheduled for consideration by the Court at a private conference.
When a case is "distributed for conference," it means that the Justices of the Supreme Court will review the case and discuss it amongst themselves to decide whether or not to hear the case on its merits. During the conference, each Justice will have the opportunity to share their views on the case and to ask questions of their colleagues.
After the conference, the Justices will vote on whether to grant or deny review of the case. If four or more Justices vote to grant review, the case will proceed to full briefing and argument before the Court.
Thank you
Sadly it will go like this: "This case again... We can't hold THEM accountable for not doing thier job to investigate clear election irregularities. Next..."
since you seem to know, 4 will grant review but how many will it take to rule in favor if review is granted? Only 5 or all 9?
A majority of five justices is all that they need.
bingo! So if it get's heard it's got a got chance of passing
So we still don't know what happened then? I suppose they might still be discussing it
Yea wait till Tuesday, but I believe all 4 Trumpets are not just coincident.
Newsweek is covering it: https://greatawakening.win/p/16aAN80i1g/newsweek-covers-brunson-case/c/
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/👉17👈/2023.