Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: NEW: Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson respond to yesterday's Supreme Court counsel's letter defendi [View all]oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)28. Off topic, can SOMEONE with a legal mind explain the Raland Brunson case??
This guy has filed a case about the 2020 election being invalid because Congress didnt investigate "voter fraud claims" after the election. As far as I can tell, the Court accepted this case.
Is there a legal mind among us who can read and interpret this BS & explain why the SCOTUS wouldnt just let the lower court dismissals stand?
22-380 is the case
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
44 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

NEW: Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson respond to yesterday's Supreme Court counsel's letter defendi [View all]
In It to Win It
Nov 2022
OP
A criminal investigation and trial would take years with all of the appeals
Buckeyeblue
Nov 2022
#41
Hell, don't expect any truthful answers from the supreme court. Then you will not be disappointed.
republianmushroom
Nov 2022
#18
The response from the counsel for the SCOTUS was a non-response response
LetMyPeopleVote
Nov 2022
#34