On Truth Social trump demands to be reinstated...again

[Faun]

No. It has not been resolved and will not be until the guilt or innocence of the members of Congress is determined. FACT.

Moron, the Supreme Court is not a criminal court. They don't determine guilt or innocence. They're an appellate court. They determine if the lower court's findings are constitutional or not.

 

[Faun]

Then they decided not to defend the Constitution with that decision. And in doing that violated their oath of office. Is it too simple for you to understand?

Again, the Republican-led Senate also didn't investigate. Yet you never condemned them. Your hypocrisy is showing again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Not defending the Constitution is funny? If that is what are judges think we are in very sad shape. Why does the rule of law upset you so?

Just out of curiosity, have YOU ever "defended the Constitution", or is that just a sound bite you like to sound off with when stuff happens that you disagree with? Sorry, but all the things you have been calling for on this thread are probably some of the least coherent things I've heard in a long time.

Have I ever defended the Constitution? Yep. Swore an oath to do so and have ever since 1982 when I joined the Navy, and haven't stopped since.

 

[Faun]

It has merit. The Constitution says only two witnesses have to bring charges of treason. Article 2 section 3, read it. Siding with alleged fraudsters is treason.

That requires evidence of treason, of which there is none.

 

[Lastamender]

Again, the Republican-led Senate also didn't investigate. Yet you never condemned them. Your hypocrisy is showing again.

Moot point. That is twice now I have told you.

 

[ABikerSailor]

That requires evidence of treason, of which there is none.

Lastamender must have some HUGE pants, because he keeps pulling stuff outta his ass.

 

[Lastamender]

Just out of curiosity, have YOU ever "defended the Constitution", or is that just a sound bite you like to sound off with when stuff happens that you disagree with? Sorry, but all the things you have been calling for on this thread are probably some of the least coherent things I've heard in a long time.

Have I ever defended the Constitution? Yep. Swore an oath to do so and have ever since 1982 when I joined the Navy, and haven't stopped since.

Just out of curiosity what does it matter what I have done?

 

[Lastamender]

Lastamender must have some HUGE pants, because he keeps pulling stuff outta his ass.

Read the case. My ass has nothing to do with it.

 

[Faun]

That is not your call to make.

And the lower court already explained why it lacked merit...

Mr. Brunson’s claims against defendant members of Congress and former Vice President Pence, alleging failure to investigate election fraud prior to accepting the electoral college votes, are also likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause ofthe Constitution. Article I, section 6 of the Constitution provides: “The Senators and Representatives ... for any speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause affords Members of Congress absolute immunity from all claims arising out of their conduct in the legislative sphere. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Bingaman, 234 F. App’x 852, 855 (10th Cir.) (holding that Speech or Debate immunity barred suit challenging the “decision of individual Congressmen not to take legislative action in response to [plaintiffs] prompts”), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007); see also Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (providing that the “Supreme Court has consistently read the Speech or Debate Clause ‘broadly’ to achieve its purposes”)​

 

[Lastamender]

That requires evidence of treason, of which there is none.

The vote is the evidence of treason. How did you get this stupid?

 

[Faun]

If 388 members of Congress are thrown out of office people will understand thier vote not to investigate the election made the election illegitimate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Read the case. My ass has nothing to do with it.

And yet you keep pulling crap out of it and posting it here.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And the lower court already explained why it lacked merit...

Mr. Brunson’s claims against defendant members of Congress and former Vice President Pence, alleging failure to investigate election fraud prior to accepting the electoral college votes, are also likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause ofthe Constitution. Article I, section 6 of the Constitution provides: “The Senators and Representatives ... for any speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause affords Members of Congress absolute immunity from all claims arising out of their conduct in the legislative sphere. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Bingaman, 234 F. App’x 852, 855 (10th Cir.) (holding that Speech or Debate immunity barred suit challenging the “decision of individual Congressmen not to take legislative action in response to [plaintiffs] prompts”), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007); see also Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (providing that the “Supreme Court has consistently read the Speech or Debate Clause ‘broadly’ to achieve its purposes”)​

Thanks. It truly seems the only reason the SCOTUS took the case was to put it to bed once and for all and not have others try this

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The vote is the evidence of treason. How did you get this stupid?

Only in your opinion. So far no court has agreed and on Jan 6th I am betting my car that the SCOTUS does not either.

 

[Lastamender]

And the lower court already explained why it lacked merit...

Mr. Brunson’s claims against defendant members of Congress and former Vice President Pence, alleging failure to investigate election fraud prior to accepting the electoral college votes, are also likely barred by absolute legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate clause ofthe Constitution. Article I, section 6 of the Constitution provides: “The Senators and Representatives ... for any speech or Debate in either House, ... shall not be questioned in any other Place.” This clause affords Members of Congress absolute immunity from all claims arising out of their conduct in the legislative sphere. See, e.g., Rockefeller v. Bingaman, 234 F. App’x 852, 855 (10th Cir.) (holding that Speech or Debate immunity barred suit challenging the “decision of individual Congressmen not to take legislative action in response to [plaintiffs] prompts”), cert, denied, 552 U.S. 1022 (2007); see also Rangel v. Boehner, 785 F.3d 19, 23 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (providing that the “Supreme Court has consistently read the Speech or Debate Clause ‘broadly’ to achieve its purposes”)​

The lower court is now irrelevant. And why would a law be passed that protects treason? Kind of defeats the purpose.That argument has been beaten in court and that is why the case is where it is at.

 

[Faun]

The vote is the evidence of treason. How did you get this stupid?

LOL

Your source for claiming that has been thrown out of every court that heard it.

You're a mental case.

 

[Lastamender]

Only in your opinion. So far no court has agreed and on on Jan 6th I am betting my car that the SCOTUS does not either.

My opinion is there was no excuse for Congress not to take 10 days to investigate the election. Our Constitution says free and fair elections. It is our representatives responsibility to show people it was free and fair when asked to do so. The people are the boss, remember? Correct?

 

[Faun]

Thanks. It truly seems the only reason the SCOTUS took the case was to put it to bed once and for all and not have others try this

That was just the lack of merit. That court also found a lack of standing...

(1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.​

Remember, when FruitLoops posts something, he's out of his fucking mind.

 

[Lastamender]

LOL

Your source for claiming that has been thrown out of every court that heard it.

You're a mental case.

I never claimed anything was thrown out of court. That is what you have been doing, you moron.

 

[Lastamender]

That was just the lack of merit. That court also found a lack of standing...

(1) Mr. Brunson lacked constitutional standing because his claimed injury was not concrete and personal to him but only the same as any citizen, and (2) Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity barred the claims against the defendants, who were sued in their official capacity only, and Mr. Brunson failed to identify any statute or other express provision that unequivocally waives that immunity for his claims.​

Remember, when FruitLoops posts something, he's out of his fucking mind.

Not relevant. What the SC says will be.