Under The Radar: Brunson V. Adams

Read about Brunson v. Adams HERE. 

Excerpt (the first few paragraphs, emphases mine):

While there has been much public attention on the U.S. Supreme Court’s present consideration of the “independent state legislature” theory in Moore v. Harper involving North Carolina’s redistricting, that case would not immediately upend the 2020 presidential election.

In contrast, a little-known case that appeared recently on the Court docket could do just that. The case of Brunson v. Adams, not even reported in the mainstream media, was filed pro se by ordinary American citizens – four brothers from Utah — seeking the removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. representatives and 94 U.S. senators who voted to certify the electors to the Electoral College on Jan. 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election. The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.

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 and get the case to the Supreme Court which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023. The Brunson Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would require the votes of only four justices to move the case forward.

It seems astounding that the Court would wade into such waters two years to the day after the Congressional vote to install Joe Biden as president. But these are not normal times. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the Court.

The final paragraph reads as follows:

The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless Jan. 6 congressional committee, politicized federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies and major constitutional violations intended to overthrow an elected government by manipulating the outcome of the presidential election.

Read the entire essay HERE.

Your thoughts?  

For my part, I'm wondering if Brunson v. Adams is now dead at the SCOTUS level.  Is it?  Help me out here.  It looks to me that the case was denied in SCOTUS conference.  But that the case ever made it to the SCOTUS level speaks volumes!

Related: Supreme Court Dockets Brunson v. Adams Case That Challenges the Failure of Congress to Investigate Disputed Electoral College Votes.

Roe v. Wade: Overturned?

Right now: Barricades are up around the Supreme Court building, just minutes after reports from Politico were leaked indicating SCOTUS has voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LxR9rbs6TF

— Cami Mondeaux (@cami_mondeaux) May 3, 2022

Discuss.

Recommended Reading

See 10 Amazing Facts About Unborn Babies You Should Know Before SCOTUS Rules On Dobbs.  Many of these details were unknown at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. 

Do you believe that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by the SCOTUS?

On The Other Hand...

The Law of Unintended Consequences in play? 

See Ginsburg's death gives GOP an edge in 2020 legal fights: How the loss of the reliably liberal justice could affect the outcome of upcoming election-related disputes.

Excerpt:

The first signs of the impact of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s absence may come in a flurry of election-related disputes expected to reach the Supreme Court on an emergency basis in the coming weeks. Until Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts or other justices had the power to issue or deny emergency relief by joining with the court’s four liberals. It didn’t happen often, but it did sometimes happen. 

With the court shorthanded for the time being, the court’s three remaining Democratic appointees would now need two Republican-appointed colleagues to take emergency action. 

With scores of court challenges underway across the country seeking or opposing coronavirus-related changes to voting procedures, the change in the ideological balance of the high court could affect the outcome of such fights — even if a new justice doesn’t take the bench until after the election....

Read the rest HERE.

I admit it.  I'm smiling at the possible irony.

RBG's Own Words

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words — in 2016...

Here's What RBG Said About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy in an Election Year: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.” https://t.co/Awim0Ww6fF

— Always On Watch (@Always_On_Watch) September 20, 2020

Another flashback — again, from 2016 (hat tip to Mike's America)...

Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob pic.twitter.com/Mdm0P5SRC4

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) February 23, 2016

As Mike's America opined on September 19, 2020:

Like Obama, Trump has the duty under the Constitution to appoint a successor. The Senate has the power to confirm.

Related: 

(1) ‘That’s a promise’: Actor Russ Tamblyn says ‘there will be a war’ if ‘you dare try and replace’ RBG

2) The left threatens death, destruction, and fire if President Trump dares nominate a replacement for RBG on SCOTUS.

So...

 

"You won't know what hit you"

Silverfiddle Rant!

We touch on press bias quite a bit here, and awhile back our friend from across the pond Jez asked for examples. Chuck Schumer's red-faced, bellicose threat to two Supreme court justices provides us a simple case study.




What Senator Schumer, second most powerful Democrat in government, said:

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Chief Justice Roberts rebuked him in an official statement, and the press could not ignore it, so they dissembled and made excuses for him in a manner reminiscent of an abused housewife covering for her alcoholic husband to keep him out of trouble.  A press that casts every presidential utterance in the worst light possible, did double backbend whataboutisms for Schmucky.

They claimed Justice Kavanaugh issued the same threat at the end of his hearings. Here is what Kavanaugh said, after being publicly savaged, smeared and slandered:

“Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation,” he told Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.”

Does that sound like a threat to you? Kavanaugh's lament for our nation is not even in the same category as Schumer's splenetic outburst.

Even those august news outlets that rightly condemn Schumer's comments cannot leave it at that. 

They must balance it off with a "Trump does it too:"

► He earned his own rebuke from Roberts in 2018 after labeling a federal jurist an "Obama judge" for ruling against the administration.

► As a candidate, Trump made bigoted remarks about a federal judge of Mexican heritage handling a fraud case over Trump University.

► Last month, the president criticized a judge overseeing the trial of Roger Stone, a longtime Trump friend.

► And last week, Trump called on two liberal Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from "Trump-related" cases.

None of those examples come close to a threat.  His remarks against Judge Curiel were stupid, petty and un-American, but not menacing, especially coming from a candidate.  Asking judges to recuse themselves due to their blatant, open bias is also not a threat.

Our nation is ill-served by a Democrat Party-biased press that shovels us editorials and propaganda disguised as news.

The Slide Into Rigging Our Elections

Reading for the above graphic: Roberts Helps Dems Rig Elections: The Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump's citizenship question on the 2020 census. First paragraph:

With the amount of information the U.S. Census gathers every decade, it seems logical that one of the questions asked would be simply, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Yet the very idea of asking this simple “yes” or “no” question outraged the Left — which is in a headlong rush to offer free stuff to anyone who arrives. And leftists found a judge and a Supreme Court willing to stop the Trump administration from adding this longstanding question back into the 2020 census.

Read the rest HERE.

This wrong-headed SCOTUS decision came just a few days before America's 243rd birthday. Our Founders must be writhing in their graves.

The Left Drops The Mask

(Please scroll down to the blog post below this one. Active thread there)

From Powerline Blog comes this (hat tip to Warren for alerting me to this information)...

One can hardly write a post on the mean-spiritedness of today’s liberals without mentioning the fallout from the Democrats’ failed effort to bully Brett Kavanaugh out of a seat on the Supreme Court. Here the choice is almost limitless, but let’s go with this one: a writer for the Stephen Colbert show seeks solace in having ruined Judge Kavanaugh’s life:

The hatred will intensify. Watch for it.

Thank You

Silverfiddle Rant!

El Donaldo Leads the Reconquista

Thank you President Trump for injecting some of your brass balls, steel spine, and reactive armor into the Grand Old Party.

Any other GOP president would have caved halfway through the Kavanaugh smear, and the GOP rank and file would have wet themselves and scurried to the tall grass to figure out how to ingratiate themselves with CNN.

Thank you Justice Kavanaugh and family for bravely facing the lies and calumny and refusing to cave to the frightful pressure from the baying mobs. You have struck a mighty blow for the truth, and your victorious stand may end up being the high water mark of the uncorroborated, unsubstantiated, fact-free public square condemnations fueled by #MeToo hysteria.

The Democrat Scam That Failed

Thank you arrogant Democrats, for overplaying your hand in such an operatic fashion.  You were so cocky, from so many years of of flogging and de-pantsing crouching Republicans, that you got sloppy. The Kavanaugh smear was as amateurish as it was diabolical. You just motivated millions of good middle-America people to go out and vote for Republicans this November.

A New GOP Dawn

Thank you Mitch McConnell for politely invoking the Biden Rule and allowing the 2016 voters to decide whether to send Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Despite the leftwing screaming propaganda attacks, you held firm, and you did so with grace and dignity.

Thank you Charles Grassley for conducting a straight-up hearing despite Democrat dirty tricks, leftwing hysteria, ham-fisted histrionics and circus clown antics. You and all the GOP senators showed America what sober, adult leadership looks like. You surprised me by handling the delicate Dr Ford accusations with fairness and sensitivity, and when no corroborating evidence surfaced, you stood up for the American principle of Innocent until Proven Guilty

Finally, the GOP stood on principle and fought, and--mirabile dictu--WON!

The Republicans have brought us a hard-won triumph of facts, logic and reason, and they have dealt a defeat to hysteria, media manipulation, and emotion-based propaganda.

Well done, Senate Republicans. America thanks you.

Graphic added by AOW:

Brett Kavanaugh sworn in as SCOTUS justice (October 6, 2018)

Brett Kavanaugh: A Life And A Family Destroyed

A tragedy playing out before our very eyes:

Corollary: Lindsay Graham at the September 27, 2018 Kavanaugh hearings...

Liar's Veto

Silverfiddle Rant!

Anti-constitution Democrats have a burning determination to punish their enemies with Soviet-Style Kangaroo Courts:

 "Prove you're not guilty!" 

How many rabid leftwing haters would put their own fate in the hands of an unhinged mob? Do any of those man-hating females have a beloved man in her life? Can they imagine this vengeful hysteria and frenzied rage destroying the good name and career of a son, brother or father?

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Our justice system--as imperfect as it is--is based upon the bedrock constitutional principle of innocent until proven guilty, and indeed, that is the standard at every level of reasoned human interaction. People who reject this standard are unhinged loonies who belong in a totalitarian regime, or in a rabble of libertines turning on one another like in the violent post-French revolution reign of terror.

You want to accuse someone? Block them from advancement? Present dispositive information that can be proven or disproven, and do so in an open, adversarial forum where evidence and testimony can be tested by examination and logic.

Liar's Veto

Anything below that standard is a Liar's Veto. If the BAMN* Democrats succeed in derailing this nomination based on an allegation unsupported by witnesses or evidence, they will have set a horrible precedent where any liar can defeat a hated political enemy.

Democrats, blood boiling, rage in their eyes, want revenge. 

Revenge for Anita Hill, but more importantly, revenge for Republicans' refusal to consider Judge Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Revenge at any cost. 

Democrats have a right to be angry, but consider: Republicans, unlike the vindictive, rage-filled Democrats, did not smear Judge Garland. They plainly stated it would be a matter for the voters, leaving the good judge unsullied, and presumably ascending to the Supreme Court had Hillary not blown her sure thing. Contrast that to the shameless smears and non-stop barrage of mudballs Democrats have unleashed on Judge Kavanaugh. Shame on them.

Soviet-style Democrats want a Liars Veto.

* - By Any Means Necessary

Absurdity!

How stupid can this delay of Brett Kavanaugh's appointment to the SCOTUS get?

Here's how absurd...

PIRRO: "...Delay becomes more absurd when she needs to drive across the country to Washington because she won’t or can’t fly. She was an intern in Hawaii a few years ago. How did she make that trip? Did she drive or surf across the ocean from California to Hawaii...."

This nonsense from the Democratic Party is transparent to anyone who takes even a cursory look.

The Goal Of The Demon-Rats

One of my Facebook finds (thanks, Ed):

And this:

Feinstein Blows #MeToo Dog Whistle on Kavanaugh: Democrats employ dirty tactics in their last-ditch attempts to derail Trump's nominee.

Remember the above when you go to the polls on November 6.

Recommended Reading

With a hat tip to Z:

See Fox News Anchor Fears For Her Safety at SCOTUS Protests, Cancels Live Show (dated July 9, 2018).

This is America? In the heart of Capitol Hill?

Another SCOTUS Appointment! WINNING!

Officially, I'm on a blog break because Warren is visiting.

But THIS happened yesterday: Who's on Trump's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice Kennedy?

About the above graphic: Twitter Censors the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

The Travel Ban At The SCOTUS: Upheld 9 To 0 For Certain Portions

The United States Supreme Court Building

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've already heard about this June 26, 2017 decision from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yesterday, President Trump was taking a victory lap on Twitter:

Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. We must keep America SAFE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 26, 2017

Note this detail of the SCOTUS decision, a detail which might have some far-reaching consequences:

[T]he court concluded that foreigners who have no ties to the U.S. cannot argue, on their own, that constitutional protections apply to them. They're not U.S. citizens, U.S. students or U.S. employees, so the protections established in the Constitution do not apply to them....

Read the rest HERE.

Enforcement of the limited 90-day travel ban may begin as early as Thursday, June 29, 2017.

Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, will the protesters screeching about Trump's travel ban go home?  Not a chance:

...A number of high profile Democrats and migrant rights advocates vowed to continue fighting against the ban.

Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said Trump’s order remained “an unconstitutional and un-American assault on our country’s religious freedom”.

“Democrats will continue to fight this hatred every step of the way,” he said....

The 21st Century Democratic Party is the Party of Lawlessness.

FEATURED QUESTION: The U.S. Supreme Court

After much ado and the invoking of the nuclear option (Dangerous precedent?), last week the United States Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court.  He will be sworn in today. 

Lame-Duck SCOTUS Appointments

The United States Supreme Court Building

Barack Hussein Obama (dated February 13, 2016):

I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.

As Obama declares that he will nominate a justice to the United States Supreme Court upon the passing the Justice Antonin Scalia, note that in August 1960, during a year of a National Election in which the President was not an incumbent, the Senate, controlled by the Democrats, passed Senate Resolution 334:

“Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

You see, by August 1960, President Eisenhower had already appointed five justices to the SCOTUS, and even though there was no vacancy on the bench, the Democrats were determined that President Eisenhower not appoint another justice.

Also recall this from the not-so-distant past: in 2007, Chuck Schumer called for blocking George W. Bush's SCOTUS appointments (hat tip to Bunkerville).

Forget about the past if you like, and now consider this, from a Washington Post article entitled "If Republicans block Obama’s Supreme Court nomination, he wins anyway":

...The court is not yet halfway through the 80 or 90 cases it deals with each term, but many of the most contentious have already been heard. Normally, justices meet the week a case is argued, and vote on the outcome. So they have most likely already voted on pending cases on apportionment and affirmative action, for example. But weeks or months can go by while the justice assigned the opinion circulates drafts. Any justice can change his or her vote at any point during that process, and often does. It’s all very hush-hush, so there is no way to tell how far along the cases Scalia heard are in the pipeline.

There is no constitutional provision, no case law and no official policy about what the court should do with cases that have been argued and voted on when a justice dies. If the vote in a case that hasn’t yet been handed down was 5 to 4, as one might expect with these controversial rulings, can Scalia cast the deciding vote from beyond the grave to change the way America chooses every legislature in the land or integrates its public universities?...

Of particular interest to Conservatives:

Even if the GOP blocks [Obama's] nominee, the policy outcomes would be very similar to what they’d be if the court had a liberal majority....

Read the entire Washington Post article HERE.

Controversial issues before the SCOTUS, now comprised of eight members, relate to abortion, immigration, and unions.

With the death of United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 2016 National Election's stakes have soared — not only for the reasons above but also because the battle over a vacancy on the SCOTUS may spill over into the 2016 Senate races.

Interesting Take On Obergefell v. Hodges

Please take a few moments to read and to consider the following excerpt from The trouble with the ‘dignity’ of same-sex marriage, which recently appeared in the Washington Post (emphases mine):

Recommended Reading

See Supremes ruling – turning nice neighborhoods into ghettos, posted June 30, 2015, at Bunkerville's site. Excerpt: