╌>

Supreme Court will not hear case to oust Biden, reinstate Trump | AP News

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  evilgenius  •  last year  •  57 comments

By:   MELISSA GOLDIN (AP NEWS)

Supreme Court will not hear case to oust Biden, reinstate Trump | AP News
CLAIM: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to remove President Joe Biden from office and reinstate former President Donald Trump in his place. AP'S ASSESSMENT: False.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By MELISSA GOLDIN March 2, 2023 GMT FILE -

The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023. The court has twice rejected a case calling for hundreds of elected officials to be removed from office after refusing to investigate baseless 2020 election fraud claims. Social media users are claiming otherwise. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) FILE - The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Jan. 10, 2023. The court has twice rejected a case calling for hundreds of elected officials to be removed from office after refusing to investigate baseless 2020 election fraud claims. Social media users are claiming otherwise. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)

CLAIM: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to remove President Joe Biden from office and reinstate former President Donald Trump in his place.

AP'S ASSESSMENT: False. The Supreme Court has not decided to hear such a case. On Feb. 21, the justices rejected for a second time to hear a case that cites baseless 2020 election fraud claims to call for the court to oust from office hundreds of elected officials, including Biden, as well as to prevent them from holding any elected government position again. Several days later, a website published an article incorrectly stating that the case was going ahead, but the post has since been taken down.

THE FACTS: Nearly one week after the Supreme Court justices doubled down on their decision not to hear the suit, social media users falsely claimed the opposite.

One Instagram post shared a screenshot of a headline reading: "Supreme Court To Hear Case To Reinstate Donald Trump Over 'Rigged' Election." It had received nearly 1,400 likes as of Wednesday.

The full article, which was published on Feb. 26, four days after the decision, stated that the court was "reconsidering hearing" the lawsuit "after previously dismissing it earlier this year." It has since been taken down, and an article published on Feb. 28 by the same author correctly reports that the court rejected the case.

Other posts made days after the decision echoed the original article's claim that the case still had a chance of being heard. They received tens of thousands of likes and shares on Twitter.

The suit — Adams v. Brunson, et al. — was previously dismissed by a lower court, and that ruling was upheld on appeal, according to court documents. It was then appealed to the Supreme Court in October 2022. The suit argues that Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence and 385 members of Congress committed treason when they failed to probe baseless claims that the 2020 election was rigged.

Further, it calls for the removal of these officials and a ban on their future ability to hold elected office, as well as "the swearing in of the legal and rightful heirs for President and Vice President of the United States." It does not specifically name Trump.

In January 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case and an appeal was filed later that month. The court rejected the case for a second time on Feb. 21.

Aziz Huq, a professor of law at the University of Chicago who is an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will ever hear a case such as Adams v. Brunson, given that it relies on a false narrative.

"Certainly something that is founded upon the irresponsible conspiracy mongering fallacies that this petition is based upon seems to me an unlikely fodder for the Supreme Court," he said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1  seeder  evilone    last year

This subject was originally seeded by Jeremy in NC 2 weeks ago here:

From today's article - 

On Feb. 21, the justices rejected for a second time to hear a case that cites baseless 2020 election fraud claims to call for the court to oust from office hundreds of elected officials, including Biden, as well as to prevent them from holding any elected government position again.
 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @1    last year

I would hang my head in shame for seeding something like that

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    last year
I would hang my head in shame for seeding something like that

I don't see anything wrong with seeding the story.

Supporting the lawsuit?  Yeah, that would be a bit pathetic.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.1    last year

I do when the story is not true

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.3  seeder  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    last year

I didn't mean to imply the Jeremy's seeded article was not true. Only that we discussed it there and here is new information.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.2    last year
I do when the story is not true

It was true.  Lawsuit was filed.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @1.1.3    last year

Ok. I understand

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.4    last year

based on lies

I think I would have thought twice about seeding a story like that knowing that it was all based on lies and had a pretty good idea it wasn't going anywhere

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
1.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.6    last year
I think I would have thought twice about seeding a story like that knowing that it was all based on lies and had a pretty good idea it wasn't going anywhere

Why do I feel like if one of your liberal friends had seeded it mocking the suit, you would think that was fine?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    last year
Why do I feel like if one of your liberal friends had seeded it mocking the suit, you would think that was fine?

Repeated observation?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    last year

Isn't that what we're doing here?

And when my liberal friends seed an article that is ridiculous on its face I steer clear.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1    last year

Feel free to prove the "lies".  I'd say I'd wait but we both know it won't happen and will result in the typical personal attacks (as already seen in the comments section) and lip service.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.11  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.10    last year

Didn’t your original article say the SC had agreed to reexamine the case? Did they?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @1.1.11    last year

Apparenly you didn't read it.  Try doing that first.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    last year

Oh wow! This is news / S

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    last year

You could have just scrolled by without the sarcastic comment

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    last year

Ice cream can give one a brain freeze.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.1.2    last year

bingo!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2  seeder  evilone  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    last year
Oh wow! This is news / S

You thought it was news 2 weeks ago. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Veronica  replied to  evilone @2.2    last year
You thought it was news 2 weeks ago. 

That's because he thought it was in their favor.  Now that it's not - well we all know how they are.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
2.3  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    last year

To quote you: "It will inform the public if nothing else." Did you have a change of heart? [Deleted]

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Kavika   replied to  Hallux @2.3    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @2.3.1    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @2.3    last year

looks like "nothing else" prevailed...

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.4  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    last year

This IS news Vic.  The article seeded two weeks ago, however, was a big fat lie.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @2.4    last year

I guess reading comprehension is still a problem for many.  If you actually read the article it states:

The Supreme Court is set to reconsider whether to hear a lawsuit alleging President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, 291 House members, and 94 senators violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before certifying Biden as the victor on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be "fraudulently" inaugurated.

Now, exactly what was the lie at the time?  I'd say I'll wait but I know all I'll get is more flapping lips and personal attacks just as I saw in the comments section of that article.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.4.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.4.1    last year

I'm not saying that you lied Jeremy.  You may have believed the story is true but the story you posted is a big fat lie and I'll stand by that.  It's a lie now and was a lie when you posted it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @2.4.2    last year

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.4.4  Jack_TX  replied to  SteevieGee @2.4.2    last year
You may have believed the story is true but the story you posted is a big fat lie and I'll stand by that. It's a lie now and was a lie when you posted it.

What part of the story is incorrect?

The lawsuit may be moronic, but that doesn't mean it wasn't filed.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jack_TX @2.4.4    last year
What part of the story is incorrect?

I ask the same thing and got just as I thought - flapping lips.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.4.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @2.4.4    last year

Because the whole lawsuit was based on a lie

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.4.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.4.6    last year
Because the whole lawsuit was based on a lie

So we're the Jan 6 riots.  So was Bernie Madoffs ponzi scheme.  So is cryptocurrency.  So is metaverse real estate.

This "only seed about things not involving a lie" seems severely limiting.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.4.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jack_TX @2.4.7    last year

You're not making any sense.

Let's part ways

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.4.10  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.4.3    last year
I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong. 

So...  You're saying that the SCOTUS is going to hear the case?  I'll believe it when they do it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  SteevieGee @2.4.10    last year

What I'm saying is your claim is wrong (and unproven) when you read my article.  I guess that was a task just outside your wheelhouse.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
2.4.12  Jack_TX  replied to  dennis smith @2.4.9    last year
So is Biden every time he talks

Well don't ever seed about anything like that.  No seeding about lies.  Or lawsuits, apparently. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
2.4.13  SteevieGee  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.4.11    last year

I made no claim at all when I read your article but if it's false now (and it is) it was false then.  If you post fake news you should expect to get called out on it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    last year
Aziz Huq, a professor of law at the University of Chicago who is an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will ever hear a case such as Adams v. Brunson, given that it relies on a false narrative. "Certainly something that is founded upon the irresponsible conspiracy mongering fallacies that this petition is based upon seems to me an unlikely fodder for the Supreme Court," he said.

One would think that the SCOTUS judges are a helluva lot smarter than to fall for conspiracy theories. Sounds like an awful lot of disrespect thrown at said judges

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  seeder  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    last year
One would think that the SCOTUS judges are a helluva lot smarter than to fall for conspiracy theories.

What these "stop the steal" people wanted were cases to be taken up so they could dig around to find the evidence they didn't have during discovery. One must have enough evidence to present at court for the judge(s) to assume a case has a chance to win for it to go forward. Basing things on inuendo and fake news doesn't seem like a winning proposition.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @3.1    last year

I'm no lawyer but shouldn't you have all your ducks lined up before you file a lawsuit?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.1    last year

you'd think after all their legal defeats they would learn that...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4  Right Down the Center    last year

Looks like we will have to bounce joe out the old fashion way and vote his ass back to the stone age where he belongs. Term limits would eventually take care of the rest.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Right Down the Center @4    last year

Sure why not?  That's how we bounced the donald.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1    last year

Yep, and it is amusing to see those with buyers remorse and those who refuse to admit they voted in a human fuck up machine.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.2  seeder  evilone  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.1    last year

Even for those who don't want Biden to run in 2024, when it comes back down to Biden vs Trump no one ever says they have buyers remorse. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.1.3  SteevieGee  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.1    last year

Buyer's remorse?  Biden did everything I wanted him to do the moment he was inaugurated. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1.3    last year
Biden did everything I wanted him to do the moment he was inaugurated. 

He stayed upright?

stupid joke...but I couldn't help myself

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  evilone @4.1.2    last year

Just spreading shit does not make  a garden grow.  Pretty sad when the only thing he has going for him is he isn't Trump.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1.3    last year

Fairly sure you don't speak for everyone.  Bidens polls and the number of people thinking the country is not moving in the right direction would suggest otherwise.  But at least he isn't Trump

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1.3    last year
Biden did everything I wanted him to do the moment he was inaugurated. 

Ah, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.8  seeder  evilone  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.5    last year
Just spreading shit does not make  a garden grow.

No, but the populist MAGA crowd will vote for it anyway.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
4.1.9  SteevieGee  replied to  Right Down the Center @4.1.5    last year
Just spreading shit does not make  a garden grow.

Actually, spreading shit literally does make a garden grow.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  SteevieGee @4.1.9    last year

Actually it helps if you plant something you want to grow and not just spread the shit.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
4.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  evilone @4.1.8    last year

As will the dems vote for shit for brains.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    last year
CLAIM: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case to remove President Joe Biden from office and reinstate former President Donald Trump in his place.

Amazing that anyone would think such a ridiculous case has any merit.

 
 

Who is online

Vic Eldred
Outis


104 visitors