The filing (writ) has to state WHY (based in legal fact) the lower courts erred. It does not do that. This is an individual representing himself. There is no basis in fact for the SCOTUS to accept this.
The fact this is on TicTock makes it more hilarious to me as a paralegal, but seriously, this is the result of civics courses being eliminated from the curriculum. Nobody knows how their govt works!
This idiot commenting on law is laughable. This is not going to be taken, it does NOT meet the threshold.
What is the threshold? I'm not a courtfag and I want to understand what you mean.
The filing (writ) has to state WHY (based in legal fact) the lower courts erred. It does not do that. This is an individual representing himself. There is no basis in fact for the SCOTUS to accept this.
What was your first clue? TicTock?
The fact this is on TicTock makes it more hilarious to me as a paralegal, but seriously, this is the result of civics courses being eliminated from the curriculum. Nobody knows how their govt works!