Supremes to review case challenging American election results

‘These are not normal times’

By Bob Unruh, WND

A lawsuit that actually could challenge American election results, and possibly overturn them, is heading for a conference in the U.S. Supreme Court in just weeks.

The case does not allege the 2020 election was stolen.

Instead, it alleges “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,” according to a report in the Gateway Pundit.

A guest report at the website by Tim Canova explains the little-known case, Brunson v. Adams, was filed by four brothers from Utah, acting as their own counsel, and it actually seeks the “removal of President Biden and Vice President Harris, along with 291 U.S. Representatives and 94 U.S. Senators who voted to certify the Electors to the Electoral College on January 6, 2021 without first investigating serious allegations of election fraud in half a dozen states and foreign election interference and breach of national security in the 2020 presidential election.”

The report speculated, “The outcome of such relief would presumably be to restore Donald Trump to the presidency.”

The report explained the “national security interests” implicated by the allegations allowed it to bypass the appeals court and move up to the Supreme Court, “which has now scheduled a hearing for January 6, 2023.

It would require the votes of only four justices to move the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari forward, the report said.

Canova reported, “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. Democrats may well push legislation in this month’s lame duck session of Congress to impose term limits and a mandatory retirement age for justices, and thereby open the door to packing the court. Such a course would seem to be clear violations of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution which provides that Justices ‘shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.'”

The report noted the threats may be providing an incentive for the justices to review the case, “as a shield to deter any efforts by the lame duck Congress to infringe on the court’s independence.”