Case That Could Overturn 2020 Election To Be Reviewed By Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court has recently docketed a case for review bringing suit against Biden, Harris, Pence, hundreds of members of congress, and 100 John or Jane Does, for refusing to uphold their oaths of office. The allegation is that 100 members of congress brought serious election integrity concerns to the attention of the defendants on January 6th, and instead of allowing the customary ten day inquiry into the integrity of that election, the defendants thwarted any such efforts.

As of the time of this writing, the Brunson case does appear to be docketed. The defendants have changed representation from US Attorneys to the Solicitor General. The most recent activity that I've seen was the 23 November deadline for the defendants to respond, which appears to have been waived by the defendants. It looks as though the next step is for the court to decide whether they will rule on the petition or not. The remedy requested by the plaintiff is that the defendants be removed from office and barred from holding federal office in the future.

I'm going to provide a lot of sources from alternative media. Zero mention of this by MSM that I've seen.

The Brunson brothers'(plaintiff) website:
ralandbrunson.com...

First saw it mentioned in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this is the same Nino's Corner podcast that I recently viewed on it, one of the Brunson brothers is on the show answering questions:
rumble.com...

I think this is the same Godlewski video on it. Godlewski claims that this has already been heard and decided on months ago, and that the dates cited are fabrications. Godlewski's video on the subject:
rumble.com...

I liked this Conservative Daily video on it. Loy Brunson is there to give a synopsis, and they hash most of it out in the first thirty minutes or so. All of the videos I'm linking here are pretty long, there aren't any concise short pieces on it yet that I could find. If you were only to watch one, this provides the most concise information in the first half:
rumble.com...

If granted, this petition could overturn the 2020 election results. Those people all took oaths, which they ignored when they certified the 2020 results without first seriously considering the serious claims of election fraud that were made by 100 congresspeople.

I think there should be consequences for that, if rule of law still means anything in this nation. It should be interesting to see how the court rules, and what comes of it, if anything. This is an opportunity for the SCOTUS to implement a legal remedy to our corruption problem. I can't help but like that, and be hopeful that they will serve us some justice.

I thought some of you might not have seen this, since it seems to be subject to a media blackout. What do you think? Discuss.

Edit to add Supreme Court's docket search results for the case:
www.supremecourt.gov.../docket/DocketFiles/html/Public/22-380.html

Two lower courts have refused to hear the case due to lack of jurisdiction. Do you really think SCOTUS is going to decide any differently? There's a reason the DOJ didn't feel the need to respond to the writ of certiorari.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Does the SCOTUS usually assign docket numbers to cases that are going to be ignored?

a reply to: network dude

Yep. Trump's attempt to get the stay in the documents case overturned got one and SCOTUS chose to not to hear that case.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

As I said in my OP, the court does appear to be taking this case seriously.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Why do you think that? If a writ of certiorari is filed then a docket is opened. That doesn't mean the court is going to decide to hear the case.

From what I understand, getting something added to the docket doesn't mean that it will ever get looked at.

The SCOTUS looks at less than 1% of cases that get docketed.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I think that because they have to take a look at it just to decide whether or not they will rule on the petition. Ergo, they are taking it seriously.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Does the SCOTUS usually assign docket numbers to cases that are going to be ignored?

www.supremecourt.gov...

The main question how many cases have even reached this far? and how many have already been struck down? and what makes this case different

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I mentioned this case in a different thread, but I think it's applicable here in reference to oaths of office.

That case is Walker v Members of Congress:
foavc.org...

The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction:
casetext.com...

Walker was trying to get Congress to obey the Constitution and uphold their oaths. Surprisingly, the congressional members joined a lawsuit to defend their being able to disobey the law.

This was in 2004, I just came across it a couple weeks ago while doing some research into oaths of office. Perhaps others are familiar with it, first for me.

What floors me though is that Congress actually sued to be able to break the law, thereby openly advocating for the overthrow of our system of government, and the case was ultimately dismissed.

Smh.

A Quick Summation Of The Walker Lawsuits:
foavc.org...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Two lower courts have refused to hear the case due to lack of jurisdiction. Do you really think SCOTUS is going to decide any differently?

It's well within the Supreme Court's ability to hear a case no matter the findings of lower courts .How did that "the Supreme Court will not even hear the abortion case" go for ya ?
You sure you are a US citizen ?

a reply to: Gothmog

I don't remember anyone ever saying that? That said, Dobbs isn't exactly a great comparison for your argument. The Dobbs case was heard by both lower courts. Brunson was rejected by both lower courts. Once again, the DOJ are so confident this will be tossed out due to lack of jurisdiction they didn't even bother to respond to the writ of certiorari.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The DOJ knows that the fix is in.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Let me be the first to say, nothing, absolutely nothing, will ever come of this.

a reply to: TonyS

The assumption that democracy is operational holds more value than the need to assess and verify all the stations safeguarding the mechanics of its operation. Of course, leaning heavily on assumption works both ways.

Tossed out ? That Opinion Doesn't make any sense considering ---

The Supreme Case

The Supreme Court has received this case. Not only did they receive it, it was requested by the Court that it be filed correctly and in a more expedient fashion.

The very fact that this case even made it to the Supreme Court, wherein they took it into the docket, is its own kind of miracle.

“Fraud vitiates everything.”

The Greatest Political Story Ever Told is not over yet…[ /ex]

edit on 11292022 by MetalThunder because: Carpe F'N Diem

I'm trying to imagine a universe where Roberts would take up that case. He folded over Obama care, he was heard yelling at fellow SCOTUS after the 2020 election, worried more about riots than the constitution.
Someone has something nefarious over Mr. Robert I believe.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

in contrast 2016 obama had no standing nor presented any evidence

Obama accused Russia of "aggressive harassment," saying "all Americans should be alarmed by Russia's actions." He believes that hacking "could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government."

The move follows calls from senior US senators to sanction Russian diplomats who are believed to have played a role in the last month's election-hacking against the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton's campaign.

How do ya hack voting machines not connected to internet?
but they are beginning early 2000's

This research concluded that widely-deployed security technologies and procedures could mitigate many of the risks associated with electronic blank ballot delivery, but that the risks associated with casting ballots over the Internet were more serious and challenging to overcome.

gain of function

Just last night I had dismissed the idea that COVID was a bioweapon used to remove Trump from office. But action by the Barack Obama administration throws that into doubt.

One of the most suspect and damning revelations in Fauci-gate is that the NIH had paused gain-of-function research on viruses (experimentation designed to alter organisms to increase pathogenesis, transmissibility, or host range) during the Obama administration, then right before Donald Trump’s inauguration, they approved it again.

hacking claims disputed

. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.

originally posted by: Zrtst
I'm trying to imagine a universe where Roberts would take up that case. He folded over Obama care, he was heard yelling at fellow SCOTUS after the 2020 election, worried more about riots than the constitution.
Someone has something nefarious over Mr. Robert I believe.

Roberts did the RvW decision to screw republicans at the direction of the DNC. this will be dismissed.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

If past history on this subject is any judge, they will throw it out saying there's nothing to it.

The SC is as compromised as Congress and the rest of the government.

Remember what Trump said about that. That the level of corruption in DC is breathtaking.