—————————————————————-
After months of anticipation, the Supreme Court announced on Feb. 21 they would not hear a case brought forward by Utah resident Raland Brunson regarding overturning the results of the 2020 election.
The justices turned down Brunson’s request without explanation. A vote tally was not made available.
Brunson and his brothers filed the case in 2021. They argued that members of Congress were negligent in not thoroughly investigating “evidence of 2020 election fraud.”
The Brunsons argued that the election was “rigged” and should not have been certified.
Accordingly, they asked the court to decertify the election, remove Joe Biden from office and “swear in Donald Trump as president.
Last month, the Supreme Court indicated it would not hear the case. Brunson petitioned the court to reconsider their decision.
In his 10-page petition, Brunson argued that the court should hear the case because congressional representatives failed to fulfill their oath of office and the “rigged election” constituted a “national security breach.”
An excerpt from the petition read:
“When a case like this one comes forward under a petition for writ of certiorari claiming that there exists a serious national security breach, and that this breach is an act of war, and that it requires an act on an emergency level to repair this breach immediately—to stop this war, and that those perpetrators of this breach are the respondents, doesn’t this Court have the power to adjudicate these serious claims and to immediately end the conflict and fix the national security breach?”
Steve Vladeck, the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, was not surprised by today’s announcement by the high court.
“To the surprise of exactly no one who understands what they’re talking about, the frivolous rehearing petition from SCOTUS’s denial of the frivolous cert. petition trying to ‘reinstate’ President Trump was denied this morning without comment,” Vladeck wrote on Twitter.
The Brunson brothers have not responded to the court’s ruling. On Monday, the brothers posted:
“As we observe Presidents’ Day this year, there is much turmoil in our great country. However, we are inspired and hopeful as we await future decisions on our case efforts. As we continue our fight for the good of America, we are reminded of all of the incredible men who have served as President, and are anxiously looking forward to the day greatness returns to the Office of the President.”
Rose Rambles... 