SCOTUS Case May Be Moot As North Carolina Court To Rehear Major Election Suit
Martin Walsh
February 6, 2023
https://conservativebrief.com/election-s...&utm_medium=757

North Carolina’s closely-watched election case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and could upend the 2024 presidential race.

“Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical about a state court’s decision to strike down Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina, but it seemed unlikely a majority would embrace a broad theory that could upend election law nationwide. The appeal brought by North Carolina Republicans asks the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to embrace a hitherto obscure legal argument called the ‘independent state legislature theory,’ which could strip state courts of the power to strike down certain election laws enacted by state legislatures,” the New Yorker reported.

“The independent state legislature argument hinges on language in the Constitution that says election rules ‘shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.’ Supporters of the theory, which has never been endorsed by the Supreme Court, say the language supports the notion that, when it comes to federal election rules, legislatures have ultimate power under state law, potentially irrespective of potential constraints imposed by state constitutions,” the outlet added.

“Backed by Republican leaders at the N.C. General Assembly, the crux of the argument is that they and all other state legislators should have much broader power to write election laws, with courts mostly not allowed to stop them by ruling their actions unconstitutional. They’ve been tight-lipped about the case since filing it this spring, mostly preferring to avoid commenting on it to reporters and instead doing their talking through legal briefs. Beyond redistricting the case also has the potential to change how North Carolina and the 49 other states handle everything from early voting and mail-in ballots rules to voter ID, recounts, post-election audits, and anything else that could possibly affect an election,” the outlet added.

However, there’s been another major turn of events.

The newly Republican-controlled North Carolina Supreme Court will rehear a major redistricting case at the heart of one of the biggest Supreme Court decisions expected this year.

“The state court could render the case moot after the Supreme Court heard it in early December. The justices’ decision was expected this summer. The North Carolina legislature’s lawyers, representing the Republican majority, pushed the independent state legislature theory, the idea that the state legislature — to the exclusion of nearly all other organs of state government, including state constitutions and courts — gets to govern voting, election administration, and redistricting,” MSN reported.-- excerpt, rest at link above --

Supreme Court Rejects Request To Hear Case Seeking To Overturn 2020 Election
https://conservativebrief.com/court-requ...utm_medium=1126
Martin Walsh
February 22, 2023


The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a case brought forward by Utah resident Raland Brunson regarding overturning the results of the 2020 election.

“The court periodically releases lists of orders, and the Feb. 21 list included the decision on Brunson v. Alma Adams. Brunson and his brothers filed the case in Utah in 2021, arguing that members of Congress violated their oath of office by failing to investigate evidence of 2020 election fraud and certifying the electoral votes for President Joe Biden. That amounted to a rigged election, which achieves the same result as war, the Brunsons argued. The case was moved to federal court, where the brothers asked the judiciary to remove Biden from office. If carried out, that would mean swearing in former President Donald Trump as president, according to court filings,” NTD News reported.

In January, the Supreme Court denied the first lawsuit brought by the brothers that was against President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence 291 House members, and 94 senators.

“The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021, allowing for Biden and Harris to be fraudulently inaugurated. The court held a private conference Friday to vote on whether or not to hear the case, releasing its decision Monday. Four of the nine justices must vote to hear a case for it to move forward,” Just The News reported.

The lawsuit, filed by Raland J. Brunson, alleges the defendants violated their oaths of office by refusing to investigate evidence of fraud in the 2020 election before accepting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, 2021.

In a separate case, the Supreme Court is currently deciding on a quarter-century-old law that has protected tech companies from lawsuits and prosecution for content posted by their users. The ruling is being closely watched as it could upend rules that have governed the internet.

“Section 230 is seen as a fundamental law of the internet and considered inviolable by its staunch defenders. Section 230 was part of the Communication Decency Act, an anti-pornography law signed in 1996, that helped set the rules of the road for the internet, which was still in its infancy as an online playground for all. The idea was to protect the then embryonic internet sector from cascading lawsuits and to allow it to flourish while encouraging tech companies to moderate their content,” Breitbart reported.

“At the time most of the attention went on limits put on sexual content, a part of the bill that was backed by then-president Bill Clinton and that was later struck down by the Supreme Court in a landmark case. But inserted into the legislation was Section 230 which stated that ‘no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher’ or hold responsibility for the content that came from an outside party. Under the protection of Section 230, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube became the conduits of a world conversation without ever being at risk of a lawsuit by someone taking offense at a tweet or a controversial video,” the outlet added.

The Supreme Court also recently heard arguments in a closely-watched immigration case that could set a major precedent.-- excerpt, rest at link above --