Brunson's Foreign and Domestic Petition

Topic: Perspective

I had a front row seat to the initial go-around of election challenges in 2020.  I was naïve then, at least compared to how my mind operates today.  It was certainly possible, in my estimation, that the courts would render unjust decisions regarding our 2020 Presidential election, but I figured they would at least hear the cases, given that the fraud was obvious to roughly half the country in the period leading up to Joe Biden’s inauguration, and more than 60 percent today.

Standing.  Jurisdiction.  Procedural grounds.  Terms I hoped, after December 2020, to never hear in association with one another again. Our courts, from lower ones all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, canned one case after another, ending with Texas v. Pennsylvania, which correctly alleged that Pennsylvania’s election maladministration disenfranchised Texas’s 38 electors.  A plethora of other red states signed on to the suit, all for naught.

Lately, Raland J. Brunson v. Alma S. Adams, et. al., has caught the attention of many who have closely monitored America’s unraveling, especially over the past two years.  It is one of two identical cases.  The other is tied up in Utah Federal Court, while this one will be reviewed by the Supreme Court on January 6, two years after the framed insurrection at the Capitol.  I write the remainder of this article reluctant to get my hopes up about anything our courts undertake, but as Wayne Gretzky put it, you miss 100 percent of the shots you don’t take.

The Brunson brothers (there are four) make this simple.  Their case has nothing to do with statistics, forensic analysis, or “my guy should have won.”  Their case rests on the allegation that 385 members of Congress, plus Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence (in his former role as Vice President), failed to honor their oaths of office, which swear allegiance to the Constitution by vowing to defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic.