Because it is a ruling that is less than a complete acceptance of the case. Even though a Writ of Certiorari would not provide much information, it is the standard for accepting a case onto the docket. What SCOTUS has done is something in between saying yes and saying no. It actually makes sense for a group of justices who are equivocating, not sure which way the wind is blowing.
Agreed. What you say is the most likely scenario, and that they are simply allowing statements to be recorded for posterity. However, it does leave open the possibility that they can later claim the information presented was so compelling that they are changing their mind and now ready to take up the case.
In this case though, because the right decision is already so obvious, I doubt that anything will change their minds. But from an optics standpoint they could reverse their decision at a later date if the circumstances dictate it. So it does leave open a possible path that team Human Patriot might force upon the lizards later once team Reptilian Pedophile is defeated. This might be more preferable to the population than an outright military coup.
Me too. But I think you mean Greenland. NASA is a freemason fraud and that Rover ain't on Mars. They get most of their footage in Greenland, or Devon Island, CAN.
It is very unusual in my long experience to see such things casually posted and accepted on what is not exactly a "conspiracy theory" board. Great Awakening to many things indeed.
Smoke and Mirrors? Appear weak when strong? Make your opponent feel victorious so that their guard is let up? Maybe they are upset for the wrong reasons and are not being honest?
This is actually true. A Writ of Ceritorari would be almost useless, because the case was not reviewed and ruled on by a lower court. It was simply dismissed. Interesting development. Thank you for pointing this out.
They could still have taken the case and either ruled on the merits, or reversed on the procedural threshold questions and remanded to the lower courts . The amici are a formality—it doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything. Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch wouldn’t have written dissents if granting cert was pointless.
This website has no idea what it is blathering about. “Amicus curae” means “friend of the court.” What it means in this case is that the Supreme Court gave leave for two amicus briefs to be filed....those are briefs filed by non-parties who want to argue one side of the case. Those were filed here. The Court read them, and that’s it. The cases are over.
And you’ll know for the future that whomever runs this website doesn’t know their a** from their elbow.
You’re wrong. That isn’t what amicus curae means. It isn’t an open invitation for other lawyers to come help. It means exactly what I said and the case before the US Supreme Court is over. Today’s denial of cert was their one and only ruling on the case. Hence the dissents filed by Thomas and Alito.
You don’t know whatever it is you think you know, but feel free to believe what you would like, based on the reliable sources of 8kun.
Did you even bother to read the link and see the attached definitions for both Amicus Curiae and Certiorari, as well as the explanation on how granting Certiorari is meaningless when lower courts have no rulings to even supply?
I KNOW the definitions, son. I was a lawyer for nearly fifty years. I think I’ve got a handle on this. But you go on and try to tell me how it all works.
I’ll tell you again, an Amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed by a non-party. They aren’t parties who come into the case. The cases are over as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The ruling of the lower courts stand. That’s what denying certiorari means. Again, believe whatever you like.
Usually when people default to belittling their opponent its because they're wrong and desperate. You honestly don't speak with a tone of confidence but with a tone of arrogance. So I'm going to choose to not believe your baseless and sourceless claims spoken from arrogance, and will instead believe the ones with bases and sources spoken with sincerity.
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
P.S. "baseless and sourceless claims" sounds like some shit CNN would say about Donald Trump or "QAnon."
u/Inhimwekek was correct in his definition of Amicus Curiae, EVEN if he spelled it wrong and is larping as a retired lawyer. If he's telling the truth about that second part, the only person with an arrogant tone is you.
I'll trust that you're an experienced lawyer. my questions to you are:
why is the court allowing these amicus briefs if case truly denied?
when a case is truly dismissed there's no additional filings unless say the court wanted the parties to write the judgement for judge's review as i think happens rarely. the decision allows only a couple of specific state legislative groups to file.
what case info would SCOTUS want or need from any LOWER court, which appears to be the purpose of granting writ?
is it not possible that the judges will consider the case based only on the briefs once they are received? seems odd they wouldn't allow parties to file, but perhaps there's some genius legal maneuver here that leaves most black hats thinking the case is done
if nothing else we must admit it would be extremely strange to allow briefs BEFORE issuing a final decision
Sorry, in answer to the second part of your question, SCOTUS is an appellate court only; it doesn’t hold trials exactly, it only looks at questions of law on appeal from lower courts (except in very rare cases). So they are really interested in the decision of the lower court and the questions of errors of law that are presented. Those are the only things taken up by SCOTUS, not the entire case top to bottom, so they may only look at a narrow issue. That’s what they were doing here.
So the information they would need from the lower court is minimal, and would be alleged by the party appealing the ruling of the lower court: what is it that you think that the court got wrong in applying the law in that case?
In all likelihood the Amicus briefs have already been submitted. The parties who submitted them knew the Court would grant them leave (permission) to submit them so they submitted them in advance. They were considered along with the briefs of each party in making the determination whether to grant cert. That is likely all the Justice looked at before giving his/her opinion to the other Justices.
Submitting Amicus briefs is VERY common is SCOTUS cases, especially high profile ones. I only worked on one, and it was to submit an Amicus brief. The Court considers them but of primary importance are the briefs of the parties....Amicus briefs are really not that important.
I am torn about this. I understand the Supremes are "punting" as Thomas likes to say to get more time, but I don't know if it's dead or not. It seems that if this week's cases are dead, next week's are too because there are not enough electoral votes next week AFAIK. All the procedural pages I find suggest that denial of cert is final and affirms that the lower court's decision should stand. That seems to mean the only reason for allowing amici is to let them get on the record in timely fashion even if their briefs are moot. (Otherwise somebody would say something about cert being denied twice, or cases still being open after denial, but nobody does.)
OTOH I just finished a long post partly about how ecstatic Q was when Kavanaugh was confirmed and how important this was for election cases. But that may be misdirection too!
So I don't have hope for these cases, other than that they showcase the eloquence, wisdom, and independence of Alito and Thomas (with thanks to Gorsuch for concurring). Thomas is himself distributing wake-up calls. Looks like time to: Cue the military.
This is someone's response "this is the same thing judge sullivan used in the flynn case to bring in outside opinions about the case. now ted cruz, lin wood, sydney powell and others can offer their opinions and proof in the case. the case is not dead. its just getting started."
Thank you! I was trying to piece this together this morning and was turning myself around. The document is NOT something you can multitask and read! Read through the ENTIRE order, don't start dooming after the moot this, moot that part.
Link is wrong. Case is dead.....amicus briefs can be filed and made part of record, but scotus is not taking the case.
Very disappointing, not surprising....definitely pissed that scotus didn’t take them, but even more pissed at the rino state legislatures with no balls whatsoever to use their plenary powers to appoint the real electors.
Guess that’s what free trips to China with nightly whores
will get you.....
That's the way I (non-lawyer) read it. "Yep, you lost but there can be additional information filed by a third party if it will make you feel better..."
Because it is a ruling that is less than a complete acceptance of the case. Even though a Writ of Certiorari would not provide much information, it is the standard for accepting a case onto the docket. What SCOTUS has done is something in between saying yes and saying no. It actually makes sense for a group of justices who are equivocating, not sure which way the wind is blowing.
A denial of cert is pretty much just “saying no.”
Agreed. What you say is the most likely scenario, and that they are simply allowing statements to be recorded for posterity. However, it does leave open the possibility that they can later claim the information presented was so compelling that they are changing their mind and now ready to take up the case.
In this case though, because the right decision is already so obvious, I doubt that anything will change their minds. But from an optics standpoint they could reverse their decision at a later date if the circumstances dictate it. So it does leave open a possible path that team Human Patriot might force upon the lizards later once team Reptilian Pedophile is defeated. This might be more preferable to the population than an outright military coup.
My first thought as well. Unfortunately I don’t understand any of this law stuff
Ladies and gentlemen, I’m just a caveman. Your world frightens and confuses me.
Caveman Lawyer is the best.
Ha! Love the user name.
Thanks!
Dont feel so cro-magnon...I'm hodling my $GME to Mars!
Me too. But I think you mean Greenland. NASA is a freemason fraud and that Rover ain't on Mars. They get most of their footage in Greenland, or Devon Island, CAN.
It is very unusual in my long experience to see such things casually posted and accepted on what is not exactly a "conspiracy theory" board. Great Awakening to many things indeed.
Antarctica attracts the lizard folk. Snowy Mars?
can you send a steward to grab my bags? I'm gonna grab a cappuccino
Smoke and Mirrors? Appear weak when strong? Make your opponent feel victorious so that their guard is let up? Maybe they are upset for the wrong reasons and are not being honest?
This is actually true. A Writ of Ceritorari would be almost useless, because the case was not reviewed and ruled on by a lower court. It was simply dismissed. Interesting development. Thank you for pointing this out.
Thank the anon at 8kun, I'm just a lazy piece of shit who reposts from wearethene.ws!
It sounds discerning to me, not lazy.
Yea, I’m probably worse than that. Sin is awful.
They could still have taken the case and either ruled on the merits, or reversed on the procedural threshold questions and remanded to the lower courts . The amici are a formality—it doesn’t mean they’re going to do anything. Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch wouldn’t have written dissents if granting cert was pointless.
Remember all media can do is point at where we look. If we dont dig, we never see what's really up.
You mean there’s a chance? u/#Pratt?
Dumb and dumber reference? Kek
Hey, y’wanna hear the most annoying sound? u/#Cmon
I thought you were making a reference to the movie "dumb and dumber".
It was. Both of them are.
I missed the second one! :) first one is hilarious because she was way out of his league, kek
Both of them?
We’re going to Aspen California!
This website has no idea what it is blathering about. “Amicus curae” means “friend of the court.” What it means in this case is that the Supreme Court gave leave for two amicus briefs to be filed....those are briefs filed by non-parties who want to argue one side of the case. Those were filed here. The Court read them, and that’s it. The cases are over.
And you’ll know for the future that whomever runs this website doesn’t know their a** from their elbow.
The thread was posted by a user , not by “whomever runs this site”
The title is a link to an article. Perhaps you didn’t see that? I’m talking about the article.
Good to know. I've seen other "news" bs pushed by them.
This website aggregates notables from anons on 8kun, it isn't what you think it is.
The court is allowing the Republicans to file for Amicus Curiae so others can come in to assist the court in the case.
It's amazing how you claim that this is meaningless.
You’re wrong. That isn’t what amicus curae means. It isn’t an open invitation for other lawyers to come help. It means exactly what I said and the case before the US Supreme Court is over. Today’s denial of cert was their one and only ruling on the case. Hence the dissents filed by Thomas and Alito.
You don’t know whatever it is you think you know, but feel free to believe what you would like, based on the reliable sources of 8kun.
Did you even bother to read the link and see the attached definitions for both Amicus Curiae and Certiorari, as well as the explanation on how granting Certiorari is meaningless when lower courts have no rulings to even supply?
I KNOW the definitions, son. I was a lawyer for nearly fifty years. I think I’ve got a handle on this. But you go on and try to tell me how it all works.
I’ll tell you again, an Amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed by a non-party. They aren’t parties who come into the case. The cases are over as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The ruling of the lower courts stand. That’s what denying certiorari means. Again, believe whatever you like.
Usually when people default to belittling their opponent its because they're wrong and desperate. You honestly don't speak with a tone of confidence but with a tone of arrogance. So I'm going to choose to not believe your baseless and sourceless claims spoken from arrogance, and will instead believe the ones with bases and sources spoken with sincerity.
I only care about truth.
Black's Law Dictionary
What is AMICUS CURIAE?
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
https://thelawdictionary.org/amicus-curiae/
P.S. "baseless and sourceless claims" sounds like some shit CNN would say about Donald Trump or "QAnon."
u/Inhimwekek was correct in his definition of Amicus Curiae, EVEN if he spelled it wrong and is larping as a retired lawyer. If he's telling the truth about that second part, the only person with an arrogant tone is you.
Saying baseless and sourceless is valid when it’s literally just a statement with nothing to back it up.
Your definition literally proves the post.
That’s funny you find me arrogant.
I'll trust that you're an experienced lawyer. my questions to you are:
when a case is truly dismissed there's no additional filings unless say the court wanted the parties to write the judgement for judge's review as i think happens rarely. the decision allows only a couple of specific state legislative groups to file.
is it not possible that the judges will consider the case based only on the briefs once they are received? seems odd they wouldn't allow parties to file, but perhaps there's some genius legal maneuver here that leaves most black hats thinking the case is done
if nothing else we must admit it would be extremely strange to allow briefs BEFORE issuing a final decision
Sorry, in answer to the second part of your question, SCOTUS is an appellate court only; it doesn’t hold trials exactly, it only looks at questions of law on appeal from lower courts (except in very rare cases). So they are really interested in the decision of the lower court and the questions of errors of law that are presented. Those are the only things taken up by SCOTUS, not the entire case top to bottom, so they may only look at a narrow issue. That’s what they were doing here.
So the information they would need from the lower court is minimal, and would be alleged by the party appealing the ruling of the lower court: what is it that you think that the court got wrong in applying the law in that case?
In all likelihood the Amicus briefs have already been submitted. The parties who submitted them knew the Court would grant them leave (permission) to submit them so they submitted them in advance. They were considered along with the briefs of each party in making the determination whether to grant cert. That is likely all the Justice looked at before giving his/her opinion to the other Justices.
Submitting Amicus briefs is VERY common is SCOTUS cases, especially high profile ones. I only worked on one, and it was to submit an Amicus brief. The Court considers them but of primary importance are the briefs of the parties....Amicus briefs are really not that important.
Please also note, Sydney Powell’s cases are not on this list...we shall see on Thursday
As much as that true, we are lost without the military jumping in, and the SCOTUS folks who failed us already are not about to unfail us now.
...perhaps this is what the military is waiting for. Provides better optics after evidence of the fraud is fully disclosed to the nation/world.
When the three dissenting Justices say it's pretty much dead, it's dead, anon.
Military's the only way.
Always has been.
Have you ever heard anyone say "disinformation is necessary"?
Honestly that disappoints me if so. I want the military to do something now. I’m already resigned to SCOTUS being traitors. Just EBS me already!!!
@SirCamembert is entirely correct. Please review the document in full (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022221zor_2cp3.pdf). Search for 'amicus', then read the entry for that case and see if 'certiorari' is mentioned for the same case.
Thanks mate, for doing your homework.
Thank you!
Military is the only way.
Lin Wood is saying its dead...what do you make of that?
That disinformation is necessary and we shouldn't treat any statement from anyone as gospel.
Military is the only way. Always was.
Sure, if you believe that you know exactly was said by Q was disinformation and what wasn't.
I am torn about this. I understand the Supremes are "punting" as Thomas likes to say to get more time, but I don't know if it's dead or not. It seems that if this week's cases are dead, next week's are too because there are not enough electoral votes next week AFAIK. All the procedural pages I find suggest that denial of cert is final and affirms that the lower court's decision should stand. That seems to mean the only reason for allowing amici is to let them get on the record in timely fashion even if their briefs are moot. (Otherwise somebody would say something about cert being denied twice, or cases still being open after denial, but nobody does.)
OTOH I just finished a long post partly about how ecstatic Q was when Kavanaugh was confirmed and how important this was for election cases. But that may be misdirection too!
So I don't have hope for these cases, other than that they showcase the eloquence, wisdom, and independence of Alito and Thomas (with thanks to Gorsuch for concurring). Thomas is himself distributing wake-up calls. Looks like time to: Cue the military.
Lin Wood is saying this... https://greatawakening.win/p/12hReR70lP/lin-wood-update-on-court-cases/
Case is dead sadly. This link is incorrect.
This is good news, Thought we were totally fucked but this sounds like a special prosecutor is needed (;
So what does this mean?
This is someone's response "this is the same thing judge sullivan used in the flynn case to bring in outside opinions about the case. now ted cruz, lin wood, sydney powell and others can offer their opinions and proof in the case. the case is not dead. its just getting started."
Thank you! I was trying to piece this together this morning and was turning myself around. The document is NOT something you can multitask and read! Read through the ENTIRE order, don't start dooming after the moot this, moot that part.
Link is wrong. Case is dead.....amicus briefs can be filed and made part of record, but scotus is not taking the case.
Very disappointing, not surprising....definitely pissed that scotus didn’t take them, but even more pissed at the rino state legislatures with no balls whatsoever to use their plenary powers to appoint the real electors.
Guess that’s what free trips to China with nightly whores will get you.....
That's the way I (non-lawyer) read it. "Yep, you lost but there can be additional information filed by a third party if it will make you feel better..."
That’s correct. Atty for 15 yrs...not appellate or constitutional law, but that’s a wrap when cert is denied.
Is this true for all of the cases, or just Trump vs. PA? I don't do too well with legalese.
Just PA I believe, other states results will come in the next few days from what I understand.
Thank you sir.
More people should read it.