Distributed for conference. Just so we're aware.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (21)
sorted by:
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.