Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election

Republic Brief ^ | 14/12/22 | Kari Donovan

[philman_36]

The op-ed mentioned. Original source is best.
Tim Canova: Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election

[ridesthemiles]

The voter rolls haven’t been accurate for a very long time.

[Seruzawa]

Amen to that. Isn’t this the case that is only to be considered for acceptance? The is like a 1 in a thousand chance that the USSC would take it up. Ridiculous overhyped clickbait.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yep. It will take a miracle for the SC to hear it. They have refused to even consider a hearing before now.

Overturning the election would invalidate every EO and piece of legislation that Biden has signed.

[The Great RJ]

An ice cubes chance in hell of this going anywhere.

[Armscor38]

“This is John Roberts/Bush/Obama/Biden/McConnell/Murdoch(I repeat myself) chance to shove it to Trump once again.”

Supported by Bushites Kavanaugh and Barrett

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Unfortunately this is the most likely outcome.

[Safrguns]

Everyone knows they are not going to do JACK, because it would reveal their own complicitness in the steal!

[Eleutheria5]

Complicity, not “complicitness”. And they might do something regardless. Remember Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? In the end, the crooked senior senator confessed and helped. Art does imitate life, but usually life imitates art in surprising ways, which is why jokes told by Rush became Dem policy so often.

[Safrguns]

I knew there was something wrong with that, but got lazy

[PatriotarchyQ]

This is so misleading. The case has been conferenced with hundreds of others. It is unlikely to be discussed by the Justices and will be put on the deny list that gets released after the conference.

[Segovia]

well, maybe it’s people who don’t read and only post?

[Dr. Franklin]

This is so misleading. The case has been conferenced with hundreds of others. It is unlikely to be discussed by the Justices and will be put on the deny list that gets released after the conference.

SCOTUS gets thousands of pro se cases each year. Most don't make it this far as they get rejected by clerk for some reason. In this case, the clerk appears to have favored the petitioner and allowed amendment of the submission. This is a unique argument, i.e., that Congress had a duty to investigate election fraud, although, the venue in Utah is likely wrong for most respondents.

[PatriotarchyQ]

Every petition is set for conference whether pro se or not. It is fairly rare for a petition to be so screwed up as needing amendment.

[Dr. Franklin]

Every petition is set for conference whether pro se or not. It is fairly rare for a petition to be so screwed up as needing amendment.

No, many get "bounced" for not being timely filed, not following the court rules, etc. I haven't seen the stats in recent years, but 20 years ago, only about 30% of petitions to SCOTUS made it to conference.

[NetAddicted]

I haven’t watched video yet, but here is video explanation of this case:
https://robcunningham.substack.com/p/brunson-brothers-make-history-the

[MileHi]

Judicial Watch or one of these type of activist Conservative lawyer groups ought to get something in front of the high court demonstrating that things like mail-in month long balloting cannot be verified by election boards, and as such, are prone to fraud.

If this could happen we would have Colorado back.

[Shady]

That’s OK, this is important.

[Jacquerie]

The point is that depending on the tossup states, either judges or secretaries of state usurped legislative laws that establish the appointment of electors.

If the court rules that such usurpation exists, then it could and should toss that state’s electors.