In a Twitter DM a follower asks, “Why isn’t SCOTUS docket #22-380 NOT plastered all over the news???”
Since SCOTUS dockets don’t seem to get much attention from the mainstream media until they decide to hear a case or make a ruling, I suspect that is the primary answer to the question. But given the media’s unfriendly approach to the subject matter of this docket, they could just be waiting to see if SCOTUS will accept the case before writing about it with their particular angle.
The docket number is a PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI requesting the Supreme Court review a lower court’s decision. It was submitted by Pro Se Litigant Raland J. Brunson and names every member of congress from both chambers that voted to certify the Electoral votes, the President and Vice-President, and former Vice-President Pence.
A Pro Se Litigant is someone that represents themself in court, and it may go without saying but Pro Se litigants have the deck stacked against them. I was unable to find any statistics that showed wins vs losses, but I did find one case where a Pro Se litigant successfully argued before the Supreme Court in a Unanimous 9-0 decision. SEC v. SLOAN(1978)
In 2013 the SCOTUS revised its rules to disallow Pro Se litigants to argue their cases before them. Rule 28.8 in the rules of the court pg 41. States that: “Oral arguments may be presented only by members of the Bar of this Court. Attorneys who are not members of the Bar of this Court may make a motion to argue pro hac vice under the provisions of Rule 6.
You will find a number of Youtube videos about this docket and a search for this docket on Twitter will yield a number of results. With the exception of this one video that expresses a negative opinion on the docket, the majority seems to be in favor of it.
A hearing has been set for Jan 6, 2023, to determine “if” they (SCOTUS) will hear the case before them. Just because it’s on their docket does not mean they are going to take up the case.
Will they take up the case? It seems unlikely given rule 28.8 prohibiting Pro Se litigants from arguing before the court. If they do decide to take up the case the Pro Se litigant will either have to get a lawyer to present oral arguments or SCOTUS will have to suspend its own rule.
There also seem to be a number of people that are excited about this case making the docket but they do not seem to understand what is actually happening. While courts can overturn an election no election will ever be overturned after the candidates assume office. No court has the power to remove any person in office, and no civilian remedy exists to remove a Federal Offical from their office either.
If they hope to prohibit these named respondents/defendants from holding office under the 14th Amendment, I’m afraid that they will be very disappointed. Even a favorable decision by SCOTUS can not achieve that goal.
While it may be the popular opinion of many that these named individuals are guilty of treason, the Court of Popular Opinion does not get to make legal determinations. Only an actual criminal court can convict a person of a crime, SCOTUS is not a criminal court and they simply lack the authority to convince any person of a crime.
The fifth amendment’s very first clause states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;” none of them have been indicted.
For the sake of argument let’s say all named respondents were by some happenstance determined to be ineligible under the 14th Amendment Section 3. There is still an out for them, the very last sentence of section 3 states, “But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
Regardless of the outcome of Jan 6th, 2023, there is bound to be disappointment on the horizon.