- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Brunson v. Adams hearing. 2020 election in front of the SCOTUS Jan 6th 2023
Posted on 12/14/22 at 6:22 pm to Beef Supreme
Posted on 12/14/22 at 6:22 pm to Beef Supreme
quote:
November 23, 2022
The Solicitor General of the United States Department of Justice replaces the U.S. Attorneys
(Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the Solicitor General of United States, the official attorney on record for the defendants, and in behalf of the 388 defendants, waived their right to respond to this lawsuit, thus allowing the SCOTUS to move forward!)
0
Posted on 12/16/22 at 5:42 pm to bamarep
quote:
It's clear in black and white that Congress did not fulfill their constitution obligation by at least listening to the election fraud concerns.
The states had certified the results as per state law involving elections. Why/how does Congress have the duty and/or the authority to question the certified results of the election?
Posted on 12/16/22 at 6:50 pm to Jjdoc
The last time a Pro Se argument was heard by the Supreme Court was 1978, so good luck with this one! A few years ago, law 28.8 was adopted by the courts to make it nearly impossible for a Pro Se case to get to the Supreme Court.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 4:54 pm to TIGERHOLD
Why would SCOTUS call and ask the Brunson boys to hurry up and get their case submitted (under National emergency clause 11 and then without, see Brunson Trumpeters' video explaining Trumpeters Explain ) and then SCOTUS tosses the case? It makes no sense for SCOTUS to request expedited case only to toss it clown. 
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:21 pm to PhxMarker1
quote:
Why would SCOTUS call and ask the Brunson boys to hurry up and get their case submitted (under National emergency clause 11 and then without, see Brunson Trumpeters' video explaining Trumpeters Explain ) and then SCOTUS tosses the case? It makes no sense for SCOTUS to request expedited case only to toss it clown.
The clerk called them because their filing had issues. All federal courts do this and they want the issues fixed asap. It means nothing and this case will not get heard by the Court.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:27 pm to Mickey Goldmill
So you are happy that elections will continue to predetermined.. 
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:29 pm to LSUBALLER
All the Dems on this board are so happy because no judge will listen to election cases. Why are they so happy if they have nothing to hide on left side of the isle. They know they cheat and would be busted.mDo you realize how that would change the elections moving forward. One could wish
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:38 pm to LSUBALLER
Just don't want y'all getting your hopes up on this joke of a 'case.'
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:46 pm to Mickey Goldmill
I have feeling if a judge would look at evidence without fear of being Clintoned ,fraud would be found.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:47 pm to Jjdoc
Just letting OP, BoarEd, and VoxDawg know now…. the 2020 election is not going to be overturned.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 5:52 pm to LSUBALLER
quote:
I have feeling if a judge would look at evidence without fear of being Clintoned ,fraud would be found.
If any of these suits could actually get to the merits and then present evidence of fraud, I have no doubt judicial action would result.
The problem is every one of these suits has been either handled by amateur idiots or grifters who couldn’t properly plead standing and follow the rules of civil procedure, and/or they had zero persuasive evidence (ie not innuendo, supposition, or circumstantial evidence) once the merits were considered.
This post was edited on 12/29/22 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:00 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
couldn’t properly plead standing
Doesn’t seem to matter if it’s trump and Russia.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:02 pm to nealnan8
quote:
The last time a Pro Se argument was heard by the Supreme Court was 1978
That was Sloane, he won BTW 9-0.
quote:
law 28.8
Rule 28.8:
quote:
8. Oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court. Attorneys who are not members of the Bar of this Court may make a motion to argue pro hac vice under the provisions of Rule 6.
I assumed they had gotten an attorney since their initial petition but the SCOTUS docket shows no attorney or record.
Despite 28.8 it doesn't mean SCOTUS will not grant cert (though that is incredibly unlikely because the petition is incredibly weak) the case could go forward but the Brunson would not be able to present the oral argument, either the petitioner would not have a representative speaking or an attorney could argue for them.
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:25 pm to dgnx6
quote:
Doesn’t seem to matter if it’s trump and Russia.
What are you referring to?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 6:43 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:and you dig stealing the civil rights of millions of Americans
Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 12/29/22 at 7:08 pm to Jjdoc
What is the name of the studio one of the brothers manages/works?
Is it Castle Rock?
Is it Castle Rock?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 7:18 pm to ChineseBandit58
quote:
in other words, 5 rogue states could get together and just determine who the POTUS is forever.
is this what you are applauding??
You mean PA, GA, AZ, WI, MI?
Posted on 12/29/22 at 7:22 pm to Jjdoc
(no message)
Posted on 12/29/22 at 7:28 pm to Jjdoc
Here’s a brief 20 minute interview with one of the Brunson brothers.
He said the foundation of the argument is that constitutionally, the government has a requirement to take 10 days to investigate fraudulent election claims.
As you know, there were significant claims of fraud after the 2020 election.
By not completing a thorough investigation, legislators shirked their constitutional responsibilities… and essentially became enemies against the state.
I have know idea what will happen with the lawsuit, but it’s an interesting premise.
HisGlory.com
He said the foundation of the argument is that constitutionally, the government has a requirement to take 10 days to investigate fraudulent election claims.
As you know, there were significant claims of fraud after the 2020 election.
By not completing a thorough investigation, legislators shirked their constitutional responsibilities… and essentially became enemies against the state.
I have know idea what will happen with the lawsuit, but it’s an interesting premise.
HisGlory.com
Posted on 12/29/22 at 7:51 pm to Reservoir Ag
quote:
He said the foundation of the argument is that constitutionally, the government has a requirement to take 10 days to investigate fraudulent election claims.
As you know, there were significant claims of fraud after the 2020 election.
By not completing a thorough investigation, legislators shirked their constitutional responsibilities… and essentially became enemies against the state.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News