The Supreme Court to Consider Hearing Reasons for Reinstating Donald J. Trump as U.S. President.

originally posted by: franklen
a reply to: carewemust
If Rules were indeed violated/broken by the defendants listed below, it's imperative that the Supreme Court at least LISTEN to the case, in an open forum, so all Americans can see/hear the determination process.

IF right? Thats a big if... dont you agree" 2 years in and you are still crying about voter fraud? For f's sake... So what happens when the supreme court denies your position?

The supreme court is bought off, right? say it now... If the supreme court of the United States does not not rule in your favor, thet are bought off right?

Franklen, look in the mirror. You have achieved success in life because the man/women/? you see in that mirror DID NOT QUIT. DID NOT GIVE UP!

AM I RITE?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Can you imagine what will happen if Trump gets reinstated ? Cities will burn buy the anarchist wing of the Democratic party while we will at least get several videos of Karen's screaming at the stars !!

I doubt anything will come of it but a fair hearing should have been heard long ago.

Maybe all the fools that said they would leave the country last time, would really leave.
The only cities that would burn are the ones that need to be burned down and have a fresh start, the ones that have wall to wall Liberals.
American citizen patriots will protect the rest.

It’s never gonna happen but it would be fun to see them losing their minds like we’ve never seen before.

originally posted by: Creep Thumper
At this point it seems a bit ridiculous. Two years have passed.

Authorities were still investigating potential crimes of the Third Reich, some 50 years after the fact.

2 years is nothing.

Did you know that the FBI caused Donald Trump to lose in 2020?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: carewemust
[snip]

well the FBI held evidence back that would had made it much harder for biden to had won. ALOT of democrats said they would had voted for someone else.

a reply to: carewemust

At the very least, the arguing of this case before the Supreme Court should reveal plenty of NEW INFORMATION surrounding the 2020 Presidential election that we are not aware of.

Of course I'd love to see this case argued in front of SCOTUS, but I have a hunch that if it is, the court will insist that arguments are based only on the Constitutional mandates for Congress to consider such complaints.

I would still find that worthwhile tho -- very worthwhile!

Because biden. Do we need a better reason than that?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: incoserv

The reinstatement will not happen. But the CASE PRESENTATION will cause Donald Trump to be elected in November 2024 by an even larger margin, over whomever replaces Joe Biden later this year.

Yeah, I don't expect a reinstatement to happen, but it's fun to imagine. I figure it'd look something like this:



:

a reply to: Maxmars

It was already brought once before.

The issue is before the SCOTUS because a lower court judge refused to hear it on jurisdictional grounds as far as I can tell.

Essentially the original case alleged failure of the elected parties named to do their sworn duty and investigate fraud.

It boils down to there being no recourse for citizens to even have a case heard in the event of gross failure to uphold oaths and a failure in all other institutions to act. In a rational and functioning system of governance this case wouldn't even need to be floated. The founders never really imagined things could become so dysfunctional, with checks and balances on power meant to prevent it. All of those were evaded with incremental subversions of law and corruption of institutions.

The federal government was never meant to hold the kind of power and influence it does and now there is little hope of it being corrected short of a total collapse. Only the people revoking their consent to federal exercise of their collective power can remedy it, because even the states have reliquished most of their power to federal authority. The states have mostly superficial power that is barely tolerated by the federal government, far diminished from what it was meant to be.

They won't hear this case. Even if they did and they determined that the parties named should be removed from office, who at the FBI or DOJ is going to follow through? It would end with judges in prison or a military coup.

Every court, including the Supreme Court, has declined to hear this case. Nothing has changed in Brunson's case since it was rejected in January. What makes you think the Supreme Court will suddenly decide this case has merit and will agree to hear it?

ETA: Furthermore, Brunson is not appealing a lower court's ruling on his case. He's appealing a lower court's decision that his case lacks merit to be heard. So, if the SCOTUS chose to hear the case, arguments would be centered around the case's merits and the SCOTUS would be ruling whether or not to send the case back to the lower courts.

originally posted by: carewemust
Friday, February 17, 2023

If Rules were indeed violated/broken by the defendants listed below, it's imperative that the Supreme Court at least LISTEN to the case, in an open forum, so all Americans can see/hear the determination process.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not to hear a lawsuit that seeks to remove President Joe Biden from the White House and reinstate former President Donald Trump to office.

The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate a foreign intervention in the 2020 presidential race which allegedly rigged the election against Trump.

The case is based on the claim that the defendants—who include Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS' website that read that the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday.

Source: www.newsweek.com...

At the very least, the arguing of this case before the Supreme Court should reveal plenty of NEW INFORMATION surrounding the 2020 Presidential election that we are not aware of.

-CareWeMust

Brunson vs Adams was dismissed by the Supreme Court back in October because of lack of jurisdiction. Guess what? it's the same case, the same Supreme Court, and the same lack of jurisdiction.

Anyone who thinks the outcome will be different this time is living in a fantasy world.

originally posted by: Maxmars
I'm not exactly certain what this exercise is meant to accomplish.

They are only 'deciding' whether to entertain the lawsuit... it is not the lawsuit itself... and one can imagine all manner of convolutions that could occur in the political theater (er... media market).

Are they deciding whether they 'have' to hear it, as a matter of setting Supreme Court precedent? Are they determining if the case itself stands on merit, under any circumstances? ... that will be a tough 'sell.'

This is a nasty thing to try and capitalize on... and I worry who will try, and to what purpose or effect... it might be the opposite of what many partisan thinkers believe, and regardless, the outcome will be increased and exacerbated angst in the media market (er... political theater) ...

In the end, it means nothing for undoing what so many think happened... and frankly may cement the matter in a permanent 'closed' position.... But then, maybe that's the point.

Your analysis is rational. I don't think "rational" is "normal" any longer. In fact, the things we least expect seem to be what's happening....

Making Abortion Illegal on the Federal Level.

Letting Enemy Spy Platforms hover over America.

Our FBI telling Social Media to Protect Traitors in high places.

STRANGE TIMES FILLED WITH PRECEDENTS ARE HERE AND NOW.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Every court, including the Supreme Court, has declined to hear this case. Nothing has changed in Brunson's case since it was rejected in January. What makes you think the Supreme Court will suddenly decide this case has merit and will agree to hear it?

ETA: Furthermore, Brunson is not appealing a lower court's ruling on his case. He's appealing a lower court's decision that his case lacks merit to be heard. So, if the SCOTUS chose to hear the case, arguments would be centered around the case's merits and the SCOTUS would be ruling whether or not to send the case back to the lower courts.

Thankyou for sharing your legal knowledge of the case. We're fortunate to have you chiming in to these threads.

So long as the fireworks keep rising and bringing attention to the manipulated-for-Biden/manipulated-against-Trump 2020 election, I'm thrilled.

a reply to: 1947boomer

I like to think of not so much fantasy, but still holding onto hope for a time with better memories. So long as that memory is held tight, we will always remember the standard of living being the standard we should never stop attemting to regain. Like forgetting the past leads those doomed to repeat it, if we lose that memory of better times we lose any idea of just how good things could once again be, however unlikely they may seem.

a reply to: carewemust

Lamb of God stated it well, "this is the new abnormal". Rationality, common sense, principals, righteousness, virtue, just plain good v evil / right v. wrong. These not just in definition but practice & understanding have been tainted, blurred or outright demonized. Strange times indeed, even more abysmal times to come.

a reply to: carewemust

As You Know , Laws are Meant to Be Broken in Politics .......C'est la vie .

a reply to: carewemust

Due to all the high strangeness surrounding the 2020 election and the lower court's refusal to even look at the case if you take away all the fancy degrees (due to the fact that none of that matters if the case won't be heard in court) what we are left standing with is people in authority who through their actions or lack thereof are willing to let the country degenerate further each new day towards a globalist rules based order.


Without its day in court the situation becomes a contest of wills where further trust is lost in the system and the people who represent the system.

Which is good for the globalists on one hand as it further weakens the United States but also a tightrope situation if they lose too much trust too soon people might still be inspired to rise up against their shenanigans.

They have shown their heavy handedness and political partisanship on Jan 6 so right now they are simply not going to do the right thing all of a sudden.

Unfortunately you have already crossed the line into banana Republic territory and the only reason they would even remotely consider hearing the merits of the case is to take more effective control of the narrative as it is clear many Americans believe they live in a rigged system usually seen in 3rd world countries.

That assumes a certain degree of public trust is still necessitated, and they still need more time.

You don't commit the perfect crime and then walk into the police station and hand yourself over.

The bad guys are winning.

ETA: Dayum CWM your counterpunching is off the charts, I never knew.

originally posted by: carewemust
Friday, February 17, 2023

If Rules were indeed violated/broken by the defendants listed below, it's imperative that the Supreme Court at least LISTEN to the case, in an open forum, so all Americans can see/hear the determination process.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to consider whether or not to hear a lawsuit that seeks to remove President Joe Biden from the White House and reinstate former President Donald Trump to office.

The Brunson v. Adams lawsuit claims that lawmakers violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate a foreign intervention in the 2020 presidential race which allegedly rigged the election against Trump.

The case is based on the claim that the defendants—who include Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate unfounded claims of electoral fraud in six states.

The Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit on January 9, but the plaintiff, Raland Brunson, filed an appeal on January 23. Now, the court has to reconsider whether or not to hear the case, according to an update on the SCOTUS' website that read that the lawsuit was "distributed for conference" on Friday.

Source: www.newsweek.com...

At the very least, the arguing of this case before the Supreme Court should reveal plenty of NEW INFORMATION surrounding the 2020 Presidential election that we are not aware of.

-CareWeMust

It's got to be less than a 1% chance of even being heard obviously even less to get a ruling opposite of the status quo.

still,even if it goes in front of the SC it's a historic precedent