If, as some Americans claim, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris ascended to their current offices by way of a fraudulent 2020 election, then they should be removed from those dubiously attainted positions by a federal court, as should the members of Congress who voted to certify the allegedly “rigged” election without investigating claims of fraud.
Such is the basis of a little-known case that will actually receive a hearing in the Supreme Court this week that seeks the court-ordered removal from office of Biden, Harris, and nearly 400 members of Congress, the Western Journal reported.
That case, known as Brunson v. Adams, is scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Jan. 6 — ironically, two years to the day from the challenged congressional certification of the questioned 2020 election results.
Members of Congress violated their oaths of office
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, in a Dec. 16 Substack post, wrote, “The Supreme Court has agreed to a hearing for a case that could conceivably — PLEASE consider this the longest of long shots — overturn the election of 2020, throw out all the legislators who voted to certify the results and leave them ineligible to run for office ever again, even for town dogcatcher.”
At issue here, per the petitioner, a self-represented Utah man named Raland Brunson, is the fact that most members of Congress voted against a proposed 10-day audit and investigation of the 2020 election results after having been informed by fellow members of evidence of alleged fraud and “properly warned” that such action was necessary to uphold their oaths of office to defend the U.S. Constitution.
“The argument in this case is that by not looking into serious allegations of election fraud, those who voted to confirm the results of the 2020 election broke their oath of office and are ineligible to run for any elected office again,” Huckabee noted. “To give you an idea of the scope of the potential fallout, Kamala Harris is in that group, and so is Mike Pence.”
Notably, the case doesn’t really address any of the allegations of election fraud and instead is focused on the refusal of 385 named members of the House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, to allow for a proposed 10-day pause to further check into the varied allegations of fraud and irregularities in several states.
Interestingly enough, should Brunson somehow succeed in his case, the proposed remedy following the court-ordered removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris from office would be for former President Donald Trump to be restored to office by the court, as he would be the only remaining “legitimate candidate” for the presidency.
“These are not normal times”
Tim Canova, a law professor from Florida, wrote in a recent op-ed of the Brunson v. Adams case set to be considered by the Supreme Court, after having been dismissed by a district court and stalled by an appeals court, and how it has essentially been completely ignored by the mainstream media.
“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,” Canova wrote and proceeded to cite several examples of recent actions and revelations that were far from ordinary and threaten to upend the current status quo.
The professor surmised, “Supreme Court Justices may well see these approaching storm clouds and conclude that the Court’s intervention is necessary to prevent larger civil unrest resulting from constitutional violations that are undermining public trust and confidence in the outcomes of both the 2020 and 2022 elections.”
Why did the court decide to hear this case?
Canova pointed out, “The Brunson lawsuit does not claim the election was stolen, merely that a large majority of Congress, by failing to investigate such serious allegations of election rigging and breaches of national security, violated their Oaths to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic — an Oath also taken by Supreme Court Justices and members of the U.S. military.”
“The fact that the Brunson case has made it to the Court’s docket suggests profound concerns about a lawless January 6th 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,” he concluded.
It will be interesting to see how the oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Jan. 6 go for both Brunson and the attorneys representing those he seeks to hold accountable for alleged violations of their oaths of office, not to mention the sorts of questions asked by the justices, as well as if the mainstream media will actually decide to provide any coverage to this potentially impactful case.