SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Discuss political news items / current events.
Post Reply
Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Allison »

It’s a small miracle it has just come this far.

https://rumble.com/v1z8sck-supreme-cour ... ction.html

NowWhat
captain of 100
Posts: 217

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by NowWhat »

Prayers, people. Starting to hear this story in interesting places.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

Allison wrote: December 6th, 2022, 10:36 pmIt’s a small miracle it has just come this far.
Or is it just more hopium?

I was thinking about commenting on this sooner but I decided to wait until this commentary from Scott Bradley (Constitutional expert) came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vj8WNzWmdQ

Brunson v. Adams Supreme Court - Resolution or More 2020 Election Hopium?

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

TL;DR is that if this case were to actually be considered by the Supreme Court, and be successful, it would be a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, and exercising of powers not granted, and essentially establishes the Supreme Court as an oligarchy.

Also potential State's rights violations (considering that this case is trying to overturn many election results that were certified by individual States).

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Allison »

creator wrote: January 6th, 2023, 10:31 am TL;DR is that if this case were to actually be considered by the Supreme Court, and be successful, it would be a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, and exercising of powers not granted, and essentially establishes the Supreme Court as an oligarchy.

Also potential State's rights violations (considering that this case is trying to overturn many election results that were certified by individual States).
That’s a very good point about separation of powers, and I’ll listen to Scott Bradley shortly, but as far as overturning election results, it isn’t about that. It is about treason, or at least dereliction of duty, committed by a large number of (apparently) duly elected officials. Nobody is questioning any election results in this case.

Yet the question is, how could the Supreme Court enforce their decision, if they sided with Brunson? Enforcement is an Executive Branch power.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

Allison wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:23 pm..as far as overturning election results, it isn’t about that. It is about treason, or at least dereliction of duty, committed by a large number of (apparently) duly elected officials. Nobody is questioning any election results in this case.
I was trying to be brief in my comments. The video addresses that better.
Allison wrote: January 7th, 2023, 2:23 pmYet the question is, how could the Supreme Court enforce their decision, if they sided with Brunson? Enforcement is an Executive Branch power.
Exactly, that's one of the points made by Scott Bradley. You'd have to ignore the Constitution in multiple ways to do what Brunson is asking for.

This case (and some of the reactions I've seen) reminds of the people who blindly believed in Q Anon and the trust the plan nonsense; the claims that Trump and the alleged white hats were going to take down pedo rings, and that there would be two weeks of Internet blackout, and so on. Lots of nonsense that gave people hopium. Q Anon is the best troll.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Allison »

creator wrote: January 6th, 2023, 10:04 am
Allison wrote: December 6th, 2022, 10:36 pmIt’s a small miracle it has just come this far.
Or is it just more hopium?

I was thinking about commenting on this sooner but I decided to wait until this commentary from Scott Bradley (Constitutional expert) came out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vj8WNzWmdQ

Brunson v. Adams Supreme Court - Resolution or More 2020 Election Hopium?

I posted this a month ago when it first came out, and it did sound creative and also amazing that SCOTUS was so helpful. I admit I am a sucker for hopium, but as time has passed, something seemed vaguely off about this. Scott Bradley explained why. A little redundant, but thoroughly explained. I completely agree with him.

Kate Dalley was wondering if it was just more theater to keep everybody mesmerized. This kind of hopium keeps us in a mindset of waiting to be acted upon, rather than getting active in our counties to clean up voter protocols.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

Today, the Supreme Court rejected their case, as expected.

Allison
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2410

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Allison »

creator wrote: January 9th, 2023, 12:59 pm Today, the Supreme Court rejected their case, as expected.
And this is a good thing, after all. Dodged a bullet!

I attended the Country Commissioners meeting two days ago. They weren’t exactly jumping for joy, but I’ll be attending every week now. Attending those meetings helped a couple of years ago when they were on the verge of issuing a mask mandate.

User avatar
Toto
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1372
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Toto »

creator wrote: January 9th, 2023, 12:59 pm Today, the Supreme Court rejected their case, as expected.
Not so sure about that, and I don’t agree with Scott Bradley on this issue. The SCOTUS is supposed to rule on the constitutional aspect of the case. That’s their job. However, they are in fear of their lives and seeking protection. The issue is complex, but not necessarily dead in the water. We are dealing with a murderous combination here. Early on in this discussion platform I wrote that trying to reform the system as is now current is a trap, and that it must be displaced. And I’m sticking to it.

The Oath of Office provision of the Constitution, the first law written by George Washington, is the cornerstone the republican form of government. And it applies to the States as well, and all of the supposed elected officials in my state are unofficially in office. We need to drain the swap from top to bottom, and restore the republican form of government. As it is, this nation is in a state of regulatory capture.

These individuals in DC and the States are, with few exceptions, are not obeying their Oaths of Office, they need to be displaced and replaced with individuals that will. That the Creator leaves it up to us is an ominous thought considering the current situation, because we are failing this mortal test. If the Christ were to return today, he would be crucified in half the time.

All things considered, I don’t think this issue is over yet. But I’m not holding my breath considering the vast majority of the population of the planet is voluntarily submitting to suicide by lethal injection, and other methods. We are currently in world war three. What were we expecting, a mushroom cloud?

I recall Joel Skousen believes the Lord will leave a remnant. Those who do not submit to unlawful mandates might be those among the remnant who are not swept from the land. And by their own free agency.

If there is even a thread by which the Constitution hangs, I am unable to find it. Frankly, I would like to see the case move forward in the very near future. It might be our only hope all things considered.

User avatar
Toto
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1372
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Toto »

This is so funny. The new York Times accused the Supreme Court of acting like an imperial court.

It's the exact opposite. They're acting as a populist court. Why is the New York Times nervous? They see a real threat for dismissing the CONgress. If they dismiss the CONgress, they're going to be lookin for the board members and the owners of the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Amazon.

Is Scott Bradley actually taking anything from the New York Times seriously? Pftt. Initially I liked Scott from his response to my question to him on the Oath of Office issue, and its importance. But now I'm not sure he is the right guy to listen to for advice on restoring the Constitutions. Not so sure about Defending Utah taking him on full time either.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

Scott Bradley is among the best of the best in constitutional understanding.

User avatar
Toto
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1372
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Toto »

creator wrote: January 21st, 2023, 10:20 pm Scott Bradley is among the best of the best in constitutional understanding.
Don't disagree, but I think he missed the issue on this one. The question is, what needs to be done to restore the Constitution? And where are the requisite Elders of THIS CHURCH who will hold the Constitution inviolate? Like Richard Mack, for example. If we can't hold our elected officials feet to the fire on their Oath of Office, what it is going to take? I'm open to suggestions.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by creator »

I think the problem here is that while people's concerns are valid, this case is the wrong way to resolve the corruption in government. It's not going to do what the Brunson's are saying it will do.

Personally I don't think any significant change will occur until enough people understand and value the principles of freedom. It will take a huge cultural shift before the majority stops electing evil people to represent them in government.

User avatar
Toto
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1372
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: SCOTUS Agrees to Hear the Brunson Case

Post by Toto »

Considering that none of the “supposed” elected officials in the state of Utah even bothered to file an Oath of Office in 1976, as required by law, and there have been no new laws passed during this extended period of unofficial misconduct, you would think some of the Elder of THIS CHURCH would wake up to the issue. But as Cleon Skousen said, they were asleep. And from what I can find in my sphere of influence, they still are. There are many in the alternative space who are having a “come to Jesus” moment, but it’s not the Elders.

As a free people, what needs to happen in the state of Utah is we need to hold valid elections to fill the vacancies, as required by law, with wise and honest individuals who will honor and defend the Constitution’s. Only write in ballots. None of the Dominion malarkey.

I mean, take the 15 minute city taking shape at the point if the mountain. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hK0psiSJhBM Who is wagging the dog here? (ahem, WEF) Follow the fiat. And how can anyone in public office obey their Oath of Office while participating in the insurrection of the Federal Reserve? Even the BRICS nation recognize the value of honest money. I mean sheeze, if people are stupid enough to accept a Central Bank Digital Currency, any semblance of Liberty goes right out the window. Along with eternal progression I might add.

I have some ideas from some off planet friends, and Edwin Vierra Jr., but can’t find even two individuals who would even consider putting such plans in motion, safely, yet alone even consider the proposals, while those deviating from the official narrative and dealing with reality of natural law are getting crushed.

This is very frustrating. Lots of talk, no action. I don’t know what to do at this point. Never felt so alone in my whole life. Can’t even communicate with my immediate family on the issues. But that’s what they want. Coming back to the Wasatch Front from 1.5 years in the Wasatch Back it like culture shock.

If you please, you can hear Jim Willies perspective at this interview at https://bestnewshere.com/new-jim-willie ... running-t/
Skip to 1:24:35

Great article from Defending Utah. https://www.defendingutah.org/post/2023 ... 905e15da20 Unfortunately, the courts are beyond recognition, so these people are probably going to get crushed one way or the other.

Anyway, I’m just a little fish, but thanks for a forum where I can at least vent my frustrations.

Post Reply