Brunson v. Adams made it onto the supreme court docket?

[Gateman_Wen]

What the actual ****?

And the "emergency docket" nonetheless?

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket? Why is no one reporting on this?

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/251198/20221231133825179_Supplemental%20Amicus_2022-12-31.pdf

 

[Mr Person]

"The successful manipulation of US elections constitutes an act of war."

Stuff like, say, convincing your base to vote in person then claiming that the fact non-base people voted by mail more than the base proved fraud, so give the election to the loser?

 

[Demon]

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket?

Thomas?

 

[Buckeyes85]

I think you are reading way too much into the reference of "being on the court's docket."

The supreme court does have original jurisdiction in limited matters to entertain an emergency appeal. If for nothing other than denying to hear it, it would still be listed on their docket.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

What the actual ****?

And the "emergency docket" nonetheless?

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket? Why is no one reporting on this?

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/251198/20221231133825179_Supplemental%20Amicus_2022-12-31.pdf

Emergency docket or the infamous Shadow docket?
Are they the same?

 

[Craig234]

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

Over the objections of most Republicans in Congress, hundreds who are all traitors and shouldn't be in office.

 

[Redress]

What the actual ****?

And the "emergency docket" nonetheless?

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket? Why is no one reporting on this?

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/251198/20221231133825179_Supplemental%20Amicus_2022-12-31.pdf

A couple things. From what I can tell, what SCOTUS looked at yesterday was whether to take up the case. It was one of dozens. Also, what SCOTUS would look at if they took up the case is not whether it wins on the merits, but whether Brunson has standing to bring the case(he almost certainly does not).

 

[Razoo]

What the actual ****?

And the "emergency docket" nonetheless?

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket? Why is no one reporting on this?

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/251198/20221231133825179_Supplemental%20Amicus_2022-12-31.pdf

The Supreme Court should have no say in this matter.

 

[Razoo]

Kevin McCarthy sold out the speaker of the house position! Why would anyone want this man in a position of authority??????????

Did he take a position on this matter? Do we know he the Kevin cannot be trusted?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Emergency docket or the infamous Shadow docket?
Are they the same?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer but I'm gonna find out.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

A couple things. From what I can tell, what SCOTUS looked at yesterday was whether to take up the case. It was one of dozens. Also, what SCOTUS would look at if they took up the case is not whether it wins on the merits, but whether Brunson has standing to bring the case(he almost certainly does not).

It should have been laughed out at the time of filing.

 

[Craig234]

Emergency docket or the infamous Shadow docket?
Are they the same?

I'm not sure but I think they're the same. Here's an excerpt from a Brennan Center for Justice article on the increased use of the docket:

Louisiana v. American Rivers was another controversial use of the shadow docket. In its waning days, the Trump administration issued a regulation preventing states from blocking infrastructure projects that could contaminate rivers, lakes, and streams. When a federal judge vacated the Trump rule and restored the states’ powers, the Supreme Court stepped in on behalf of fossil fuel interests, reinstating the administration’s rule without citing evidence or providing an explanation of how the lower court order threatened irreparable harm.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative jurist, raised eyebrows when he joined the Supreme Court’s liberals in dissenting from that ruling. In that dissent, Justice Elena Kagan lamented that the Court had gone “astray,” rendering “the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all.” Rather, the shadow docket had become “only another place for merits determinations — except made without full briefing and argument.”

I'll just note how despicable the example is. 'In the waning days of the trump administration, an order to prevent states from protecting the environment on behalf of fossil fuel companies' - with the Supreme Court's radical right-wing ruling for it, overturning a legitimate judge and the legitimate minority.

 

[Redress]

It should have been laughed out at the time of filing.

It seems to be clear that you have no knowledge of this case, what is happening with this case, or how the US legal system works, so I will slow this way down and walk you through it.

Raland Brunson filed a suit that those who voted or worked for certification of the 2020 election results where derelict in their duties in supposedly not considering "evidence" of fraud etc. His suit names everyone in congress who voted for certification, plus Pence, Biden and Harris, asking that all be removed from office and not allowed to hold federal office again. The court ruled that he had no standing to sue all those people due to "sovereign immunity". There has been a ton of legal wrangling, and now it has gone to SCOTUS where they will decide whether to hear the case and make a ruling on the sovereign immunity aspect, which is actually a kinda interesting question. To the best of my knowledge they have not made that announcement yet. I think it will be this coming week.

Now, it is important to note that the stupid part has not been ruled on yet. It is also important to note that neither you nor I get to determine what is stupid. You should take comfort in the fact that even stupid people have the same rights under the law. It should also be noted that when your source for events is trying to create outrage, you are probably going to come away misinformed or under-informed. What you have done is no different from the person citing Zero Hedge or Epoch Times.

 

[Razoo]

Seems like they bypassed a few courts ........... could get tossed based on that.

 

[Redress]

Seems like they bypassed a few courts ........... could get tossed based on that.

I saw that, and not 100 % sure what is up with how they did it. For that the most SCOTUS would do is bounce it down to the lower court.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

It seems to be clear that you have no knowledge of this case, what is happening with this case, or how the US legal system works, so I will slow this way down and walk you through it.

Raland Brunson filed a suit that those who voted or worked for certification of the 2020 election results where derelict in their duties in supposedly not considering "evidence" of fraud etc. His suit names everyone in congress who voted for certification, plus Pence, Biden and Harris, asking that all be removed from office and not allowed to hold federal office again. The court ruled that he had no standing to sue all those people due to "sovereign immunity". There has been a ton of legal wrangling, and now it has gone to SCOTUS where they will decide whether to hear the case and make a ruling on the sovereign immunity aspect, which is actually a kinda interesting question. To the best of my knowledge they have not made that announcement yet. I think it will be this coming week.

Now, it is important to note that the stupid part has not been ruled on yet. It is also important to note that neither you nor I get to determine what is stupid. You should take comfort in the fact that even stupid people have the same rights under the law. It should also be noted that when your source for events is trying to create outrage, you are probably going to come away misinformed or under-informed. What you have done is no different from the person citing Zero Hedge or Epoch Times.

How does any of that change the fact that this should have been laughed outta court as soon as it was filed?

 

[Redress]

How does any of that change the fact that this should have been laughed outta court as soon as it was filed?

Because there is a process, and the process has to be followed. Why are you so opposed to equal justice for all?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Because there is a process, and the process has to be followed. Why are you so opposed to equal justice for all?

Then the process is being abused.

 

[Loulit01]

This is the meat of it:


The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The case is now scheduled for SCOTUS hearing on Jan. 6. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four Justices to move the case forward.

As Barry A. Zauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the intelligence community concluded at the time, the intelligence community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6 Electoral College certification by Congress, because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration.

This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and the U.S. Intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason.

The Brunson lawsuit does not claim that the election was stolen. Its complaint centers around 385 Congressmen and Senators who failed to investigate serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security. This violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This Oath was also taken by the Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper​

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

 

[Integrityrespec]

Kevin McCarthy sold out the speaker of the house position! Why would anyone want this man in a position of authority??????????

Did he take a position on this matter? Do we know he the Kevin cannot be trusted?

What do you believe he gave up?

 

[Redress]

Then the process is being abused.

Repeatedly and daily. The nature of having an ironclad system that ensures equal access to all to file suit means there will be abuses. It is however better than the alternative. All rights and freedoms come with costs, but those costs are well worth it.

 

[Redress]

This is the meat of it:


The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The case is now scheduled for SCOTUS hearing on Jan. 6. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four Justices to move the case forward.

As Barry A. Zauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the intelligence community concluded at the time, the intelligence community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6 Electoral College certification by Congress, because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration.

This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and the U.S. Intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason.

The Brunson lawsuit does not claim that the election was stolen. Its complaint centers around 385 Congressmen and Senators who failed to investigate serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security. This violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This Oath was also taken by the Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper​

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

The problem is with the word "serious". There where no serious allegations of election rigging or fraud.

Also, that is not even at issue right now, it is whether Brunsom has standing to bring suit or whether sovereign immunity stops him from bringing suit.

 

[Buckeyes85]

This is the meat of it:


The important national security interests implicated in this case allowed the Brunsons to bypass an appeal that was frozen at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. The case is now scheduled for SCOTUS hearing on Jan. 6. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four Justices to move the case forward.

As Barry A. Zauf, the Analytic Ombudsman for the intelligence community concluded at the time, the intelligence community shamefully delayed their findings until after the January 6 Electoral College certification by Congress, because of their political disagreements with the Trump administration.

This paints a picture of collusion and conspiracy involving members of Congress and the U.S. Intelligence agencies to cover up evidence of foreign election interference and constituting the crime of High Treason.

The Brunson lawsuit does not claim that the election was stolen. Its complaint centers around 385 Congressmen and Senators who failed to investigate serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security. This violated their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This Oath was also taken by the Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper​

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

Utter bullshit.
Picture of collusion and conspiracy? Only in your mind.
Serious allegations of election rigging? There were none.
Violations of oaths? More garbage.

Attempting to use patriotic sounding words and claims of national security do not turn a bunch of bullshit into something any of us should take seriously.

The chance that the supreme court grants cert in this case is as close to zero as Trump's chances of winning the 2024 presidential election. The will ignore/reject it as they should.

 

[independentusa]

What the actual ****?

And the "emergency docket" nonetheless?

This is a lawsuit filed for the removal of President Biden and VP harris as well as hundreds of member of congress for certifying the 2020 election over the objections of a few crazy MAGAts. They are claiming that the sane folks who know the election wasn't rigged are actually traitors who violated the constitution and overthrew the government.

How the **** is this on the supreme court docket? Why is no one reporting on this?

Sideline Perspective: Brunson v. Adams Not About Election Fraud, Something Deeper

The case, Brunson v. Adams, is on the SCOTUS Docket on Jan 6. This is a potentially ground-changing election case on fraud.

themaverickobserver.com

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-380/251198/20221231133825179_Supplemental%20Amicus_2022-12-31.pdf

Can even this crazy bunch of cons on the court do this, really? They all need to be impeached just for putting it in the docket if this is true.

 

[Razoo]

I saw that, and not 100 % sure what is up with how they did it. For that the most SCOTUS would do is bounce it down to the lower court.

thanks .................

After reading all of the above comments I say this lacks standing and is a reckless move. Protocol seems not to have been followed perhaps out of fear of dismissal.