Democratic-appointed justices recuse from lawsuit

No one, is above the law. Right?

Does that also apply to the dems and left?
Because it doesn't look that way...

The petition filed by Mr. Brunson argued the justices are not immune from the litigation, as a lower court ruled.

“The issues presented in this case are very sensitive, serious and wide spread and affects all of America,” he wrote in the filing, representing himself.

He sued over “breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and civil conspiracy. All developed under their oath of office.”

His filing said that the justices “have taken the oath of office, and after having done so have violated their oath of office by giving aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, which is an act of treason, fraud and a breach of contract.”

Only standards dems have are double standards

Equal justice must be applied equally.

Well, Thank You Mr. Brunson, for actually doing something.
Maybe others will be inspired?

a reply to: ADVISOR

I won't be surprised when the FBI SWAT raids him in the next few weeks.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: ADVISOR

I won't be surprised when the FBI SWAT raids him in the next few weeks.

Or he commits suicide....

"If exposing a crime is treated the same as committing a crime, you're being ruled by criminals."
-Edward Snowden

It's not new news, just an update;

A historic case has been docketed by the United States Supreme Court. Case number 22-380 titled Brunson v. Adams has reached the highest court in the land by a Writ of Certiorari from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The petitioner of the case, Raland J. Brunson, is suing 388 federal officers, including former Vice President Mike Pence, President Joe Biden, and Vice President Kamala Harris, for “violating their oaths of office,” where they swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Brunson claims their refusal to investigate an alleged attack (voter fraud)...

The 147 members who objected to the results cited “concerns brought by constituents and legal questions that had been raised about the state’s election process.” Despite this, the vote was certified without investigation. Senator Ted Cruz had proposed a ten-day audit of the election in contested states to investigate claims. In support of this proposal, Senator Cruz noted that:

“The most direct precedent on this question arose in 1877, following serious allegations of fraud and illegal conduct in the Hayes-Tilden presidential race. Specifically, the elections in three states-Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina-were alleged to have been conducted illegally.

“In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy. Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission-consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices-to consider and resolve the disputed returns.

“We should follow that precedent.”

Purge the Corrupt

It is appropriate that a Judge does recuse from a case they are involved in. As for what the other Justices do, expect they have a better picture of how bad the fraud was now than at the time it all went down. With the next election campaign underway, too late to change the last election now. Keeping the nation together through the political divide is going to be tough. Prepare for all kinds of appeals from who ever loses.

originally posted by: kwaka
It is appropriate that a Judge does recuse from a case they are involved in. As for what the other Justices do, expect they have a better picture of how bad the fraud was now than at the time it all went down. With the next election campaign underway, too late to change the last election now. Keeping the nation together through the political divide is going to be tough. Prepare for all kinds of appeals from who ever loses.

I suspect that the OP doesn't know what the definition of "recuse" is.

a reply to: Boomer1947

I know exactly what recuse means.

If the judges were not involved in voter fraud, they'd have no reason for recusal.

Guilty of fraud means, recusal.

Right?

The left has stacked the deck in their favor, by appointees.
Planting sympathizers is a good strategy, if you're Corrupt...

a reply to: ColeYounger2

The dems will put Alvin Brag on the case.

New York Prosecutor Says Nobody In America Is Above The Law He Made Up To Convict Them

NEW YORK, NY — Following the guilty verdict handed down against former President Donald Trump, New York Prosecutor Alvin Bragg used the case to issue a stern warning that nobody in America is above the law he made up to convict Trump.

Bragg's sobering statement came after he and his prosecution team successfully manufactured a case to convict Trump of a crime that remains unidentifiable by legal experts and served as a clear example of what will happen to other Americans if they brazenly run afoul of laws he makes up in the future.

The Bee

a reply to: watchitburn

He's going to have a tragic one car accident in his garage while sleeping in bed and getting hit by a train.
Or the gunshot to the back of the head suicide.