Cautiously Hopeful

At the American Thinker today, Paul Dowling reports that SCOTUS will reconsider the Brunson case. You can read more at the linked article.

After the Supreme Court of the United States initially declined to hear Brunson v. Adams on January 9, 2023, the Court has announced a change of heart, saying that it will reconsider the legal claim that failure to investigate fraud in the 2020 presidential election -- despite a request to do so made by 154 members of Congress -- constitutes unconstitutional oath-breaking by congressional members who refused to look into the matter. Raland Brunson’s petition for a rehearing argues that oaths of office are binding and that, because of this fact, there has to be a penalty exacted upon each member of Congress who refused to honor his or her oath to protect the Constitution.

Brunson argues that the rigging of an election, if true, constitutes an act of war. Those who took an oath of office had an obligation to investigate whether such an act was committed.

In his most recent petition for redress of grievances, Raland Brunson puts the following question before the Court: “If one of the purposes of war is to put into power its victor, and since a rigged election accomplishes the same thing, which is to put into power its victor, then isn’t a rigged election an act of war?”

I am cautiouly hopeful that the Supreme Court may not only take up the Brunsen case, but that something may come of it. Too many in government take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, but then ignore that oath when actually governing. Many of us remember when then Chairman of the Judiciary Committee John Conyer cited a nonexistent clause in the Constitution he called the good and welfare clause.  To show such disdain for the highest law in the land except for the Bible itself is shocking

What the penalty for such abuse, and the mechanism for enforcing it may be one reason the Court did not take it up the first time.  But the fact that the Court may be opening a can of worms should not be a reason not to try to fix what is clearly broken.

Update: Once again the Supreme Court disappoints once again.