Jenna Ellis, a former senior legal adviser to former President Donald Trump, on Monday voiced support for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to decline hearing a lawsuit that sought to remove President Joe Biden from office and reinstate Trump.
The lawsuit, Brunson v. Adams, argued that lawmakers had violated their oaths of office by allegedly failing to investigate foreign election interference that allegedly rigged the election against former President Donald Trump.
The basis of the case is that the defendants—which includes Congress members, Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and former Vice President Mike Pence—voted to certify the 2020 presidential election after receiving a valid request from 154 members of Congress to investigate six states where there was a question of validity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to consider the lawsuit. Ellis tweeted about the decision shortly after it was announced and later provided a statement to Newsweek.
“This is the right call and predicted. The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of how a member does his or her job. This is a nonjusticiable issue,” Ellis wrote on Twitter.
She added, “Imagine if a future Dem sought removal of members for ‘failing to investigate’ Trump. This would open the door to further weaponizing.”
The plaintiff on the Supreme Court petition was Raland Brunson. His suit claimed fraud invalidated his vote for Trump in 2020 when he cast his ballot in Utah. The case was previously dismissed by lower courts for reasons such as a lack of jurisdiction.
Also Read – 3 Energy Stocks to Buy No Matter What Happens to Oil Prices in 2023
Brunson’s suit named all 387 members of Congress who voted to certify Biden’s election and called for them all to be thrown out of office—along with Biden and Harris—and be banned from ever running again.
Ellis, who hosts the syndicated Jenna Ellis in the Morning show on American Family Radio as well as The Jenna Ellis Show podcast on Salem Media, further explained her position on the lawsuit in an email to Newsweek.
“The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional power to adjudicate or arbitrate every dispute, only what is legally categorized as a ‘justiciable’ issue. Justiciablity concerns the limits on the judicial branch to exercise its authority over a matter. In this instance, the court system does not have the power or authority to determine whether a member of Congress is sufficiently exercising legislative oversight,” she wrote. “Similarly, for example, the judiciary doesn’t have the power or authority to determine whether a president is exercising sufficient executive authority.”
She continued, “There is no constitutional requirement as a matter of law that members of Congress must conduct certain investigations or oversight. This is a matter of policy and discretionary. Whether the Congress ‘should’ investigate a matter or ‘failed’ to is a political question, not an appropriate one for the judiciary.
Also Read – –What is gaslighting? Here’s what it is and how to respond to the behavior.
“I understand that many Americans are frustrated with Congress for its lack of oversight and investigation into the 2020 presidential election; however, the proper remedy is not for the judiciary to determine to expel members based on political policy determinations, and the obvious reason is that any person could then ask the judiciary to expel a member for ‘failing’ to conduct investigations on any other political issues, which would only further weaponize and politicize the court system—exactly what the political question doctrine is designed to avoid. The remedy is for the People to vote out members whose legislative actions they disagree with (thereby ‘expelling’ them) at the ballot box.”
