Supreme Court Reconsiders Case to Reinstate Trump

[Hotler]

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.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-reconsiders-case-to-reinstate-trump/ar-AA17DfTm?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=6123feaca78e45c4bd42d1ebe63e946e

[no_hypocrisy]

1. There is NO EVIDENCE.

How this lawsuit got this far is beyond me.

[Model35mech]

7. How it got this far ... friends in high places on the courts

The R's have been shaping the battlefields for decades

They're a minority party so they have focused on control/leverage that doesn't depend on winning elections.

[WiVoter]

13. That Is Exactly What The Situation Is

In a nutshell. Concise, to the point, and covers all aspects of that lawless orange asshole’s criminal operation. Well said.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. I still don't get it.

There are strict rules in Civil Procedure. When you have no evidence, you risk losing your case before it begins, either by dismissal or summary judgment. Sure, you can appeal, but you have to either show that there was evidence or the court made an egregious error that made due process impossible.

While I agree that unqualified judges have been placed on the Bench, how do you get around precedent, stare decisis, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

[Model35mech]

27. As we have seen to much, rules be damned, conservative Judges proceed to do what they can

to advance the conservative cause.

Even if the case loses somewhere along the appeals process, media coverage of the case produces rose colored stories that fall to conservative voters like valentines cookies, and the base gets fatter and fatter on misinformation.

That makes it easier and easier to bring the next baseless lawsuit.

I urge people to watch and read the news and ask themselves, what is the truth? We live in a bad time for the United States. We are now in a state of not-so-cold civil war. Big Red Money and Radical Red States are doing everything they can to thwart the power and leadership of the central government (especially when it isn't in their control).

I suspect we will soon find out if a nation constructed to be a union of constituent states loyal to a central government can long stand,
when that union is subverted by confederacy of wannabe independent sovereign states.

[LiberalFighter]

33. There needs to be consequences for judges that fail to perform.

[onenote]

20. Not so in this case.

This case got "this far" because there are rules, generally applicable to all litigants, governing the process by which cases are heard, appealed, and ultimately decided.

This complaint, which is a piece of garbage filed by a pro se litigant against 100s of members of Congress, among others, originally was filed in state court. The defendants moved to have the case heard in federal court and that motion was granted. In the district court, the case was originally assigned to Senior Judge Bruce Jenkins, a Carter appointee who recused himself, probably because at age 95, he's decided not to hear many cases. The case was reassigned to Jill Parish, an Obama appointee, who dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. An appeal was filed with the 10th Circuit and a unanimous 3-judge panel, consisting of one Trump judge, one Bush judge and one Reagan judge, affirmed the district court ruling in a relatively short opinion without oral argument (the portion of the decision listing the names of all of the defendants was three times the length of the discussion rejecting the appeal. The plaintiff then, as is his right, petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court, where his petition was denied. Again, as his right, he has filed a petition for rehearing of the denial of cert under Sup. Ct. Rule 44.2. It will be reviewed, as are all petitions sent to the court, and acted upon. That action will be, without the slightest doubt, the denial of the petition in the next few days.

Nothing about this case has a anything to do with "friends in high places on the courts."

[Liberal In Texas]

24. Good info.

Thnx.

[Ocelot II]

22. See #7. It's entirely procedural, and once the last procedure is complete,

it will be dismissed for good.

[Cha]

29. TY.. it's just scary shit even

seeing that headline.

Freaking 4 years of him and these ensuing years After that he's Bellowed his big head off.

[Ocelot II]

30. The headline, from the increasingly RW rag Newsweek, once a respectable publication

but not any more, was intended to scare us and make us take the whole thing seriously, when it's nothing but another frivolous lawsuit jumping through some routine procedural hoops but not really going anywhere.

[Cha]

32. Thanks.. as I read more of this

thread I got that exactly what you're saying.

[EYESORE 9001]

2. I have mixed feelings about this

On one hand, the SC will blow this excremental lawsuit out of the water. We hope. That’s the other hand, which is shaking with fear and rage.

[Tickle]

12. Me too NT

[hlthe2b]

3. THat headline is misleading. They have NOT decided to take the case yet.

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.

[Joinfortmill]

6. It seems Newsweek is not what it once was.

[Celerity]

10. That has been the case for years. I and others have exposed it here as a RW zombie rag, and

yet people keep posting its claptrap.

Hell, you have people still posting the Murdoch RW shitrag NY Post here.

[JohnSJ]

17. Yup, and this the SC has already rejected this story that newsweek is pushing

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-scotus-petition-election/fact-check-u-s-supreme-court-denied-petition-to-hear-case-alleging-fraudulent-2020-election-idUSL1N33Y1SU

Newsweek is not a legitimate news source:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/04/newsweek-embraces-anti-democracy-hard-right

[malaise]

28. THIS n/t

[FBaggins]

18. More than that - they've already rejected it out of hand

They rejected all amici and denied cert without dissent. The administration felt no need to even respond.

This is a (humorously amateurish) petition to reconsider that decision … which will get smacked down just as quickly.

[hlthe2b]

19. +1

[bucolic_frolic]

4. This case is to establish extra-legal, extra-Consitutional pathways to its goal

Of course they won't remove Joe Biden to install Trump. But they have already acknowledged the legitimacy of the challenge by hearing the case. So the next challenge could be more successful. Next time.

[Scrivener7]

8. This exactly. We should be able to recognize by now that the corrupt

republiQans play very long games.

If they decide to hear this ridiculous case, it will give the question a legitimacy it should never have.

[Ocelot II]

23. See post #7.

[onenote]

26. They already decided not to hear it. And they will deny the petition for rehearing

You can take that prediction to the bank. The petition for rehearing is an embarrassing joke and if it had been filed by an attorney, which it wasn't, that attorney would be opening himself or herself to sanctions.

[onenote]

25. Ridiculous. They haven't acknowledged the legitimacy of anything.

They haven't "heard" the case beyond what is required by the generally applicable (and constitutionally mandated) procedures applicable to such litigation. The case was dismissed by the district court (an Obama judge) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without having to address the merits. That decision was upheld on appeal, without even holding oral argument, by a unanimous three judge court consisting of one Bush, one Reagan, and one Trump judge. And the petition for certiorari, filed as a matter of right, was rejected by the Supreme Court without the US government even bothering to file an opposition and the denial of cert is currently awaiting the court's decision on a petition for rehearing, also filed as a matter of right.

[Buckeyeblue]

5. It's just procedural

Thomas will vote yes, Ginni will get paid, and everyone else will vote no.

[czarjak]

11. Is it too late to stop the steal of 2000?

[JohnSJ]

15. This is bullshit pushed by social media. Shame on Newsweek for pushing this garbage.

"Fact Check-U.S. Supreme Court denied petition to hear case alleging fraudulent 2020 election"

"Misleading. The U.S. Supreme Court is not currently considering Brunson’s case; the Court denied his petition for review of prior rulings on Jan. 9.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our work to fact-check social media posts here."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-scotus-petition-election/fact-check-u-s-supreme-court-denied-petition-to-hear-case-alleging-fraudulent-2020-election-idUSL1N33Y1SU


It should surprise no one since Newsweek pushed an editorial John Eastmen wrote:

"Shortly after Hammer and Newsweek published Eastman’s op-ed, the lawyer pushed the Stop the Steal disinformation campaign and helped lay out a blueprint for Trump staging a coup following his defeat in the election. Hammer has portrayed Eastman on his podcast as a victim of a corrupt FBI, which he claims targets Trump supporters unfairly. (The FBI seized the embattled lawyer’s phone this June.) Eastman has also involved himself in other anti-democracy activism, including lobbying the Supreme Court to adopt “independent state legislator theory,” which would further advance gerrymandering and weaken U.S. elections."

Newsweek is no longer a credible source:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/11/04/newsweek-embraces-anti-democracy-hard-right

The fact that there is no evidence is besides the point

[JohnSJ]

16. The U.S. Supreme Court is not currently considering Brunson's case; the Court denied his petition

"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) declined to hear a lawsuit that claimed lawmakers violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate an allegedly fraudulent 2020 general election, but social media users are sharing a headline about the case as if the SCOTUS is still considering it."

........

"A docket search on the SCOTUS website shows the petition was docketed on Oct. 24, 2022, and distributed for a scheduled conference on Jan. 6, 2023 (here). The Court’s website also shows the petition was denied on Jan. 9, 2023 (here).

While the headline in the screenshot accurately describes the status of the case as of Friday Jan. 6, posts continued to be shared after SCOTUS’s Jan. 9 decision to reject it"

.........

"Misleading. The U.S. Supreme Court is not currently considering Brunson’s case; the Court denied his petition for review of prior rulings on Jan. 9.

This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team.."

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-scotus-petition-election/fact-check-u-s-supreme-court-denied-petition-to-hear-case-alleging-fraudulent-2020-election-idUSL1N33Y1SU

[onenote]

21. What they are "considering" is a petition for rehearing of the Jan. 9 cert denial. It will be denied

The rehearing petition was timely filed pursuant to Sup. Ct. Rule 44.2. Like virtually all such petitions, it will be rejected as a matter of course.

[Polybius]

31. I know this will get dismissed, but what if 5 decided to go rogue and do it?

What would happen?

[FBaggins]

34. What would happen if the president "went rogue" and launched nukes?

What if Congress went rogue and raised the tax rate to 100%?

One would hope that in each of these cases - the other two branches would fix the problem… but Elections have consequences and can result in the wrong people getting real power to screw up our lives.

[onenote]

35. What if pigs with diarrhea started flying?

Equally likely.

They denied the petition just a few weeks ago. What makes you think they would change their minds? The petition is a piece of garbage that would draw sanctions if it had been written and filed by a lawyer --- it wasn't so the Court probably will just deny it and move on.

[ZonkerHarris]

36. Traitorous cur on the SCOTUS

[Initech]

37. Elections do not work that way! Good night!

[Baitball Blogger]

38. This should not even be on the docket.

[onenote]

43. Being on the docket means next to nothing.

Brunson has a right under the Supreme Court rules to ask for rehearing. They almost never are granted and this one wasn't granted either. It was denied on February 21 along with a slew of other rehearing petitions.

[Marthe48]

39. They better not hear this crap

Another step down for the (formerly) supreme court of the U.S.

What a freaking nightmare.

[Initech]

40. I'm so tired of the damned conspiracy theorist lunatics.

[brooklynite]

41. This was yesterday...nothings going to happen

ANY petition to the Court gets put on the docket for the next judicial conference. When the order list comes out(probably Tuesday) it’ll be thrown out as abruptly as it was the first time. Add to high a petition for reconsideration requires that some NEW evidence or legal situation has to be brought up. If you read the petition, you’ll see it’s the same crackpot argument.

[GoldandSilver]

42. This would be a waste of time

Unless of course there is a ulterior motive. I lost faith in a honest Supreme Court a long time ago.