Distributed for conference. Just so we're aware.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
Distributed for conference. Just so we're aware.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
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
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.
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