I don't know much about them, I will be honest. I only recognized two of them as being on our side. Don't we need 5 at least?
What is the likely that some of the black hats will flip to lower the sentence in military tribunals?
I don't understand why this isn't being mentioned a lot. The Brunson case is extremely exciting, if it accepted, what are the odds that they will rule in our favor? 10%? 50%? 100%?
My understanding is that for the case to move forward from conference, they need 4 justices to agree to hear the case. My gut, based on recent history, is Alito and Thomas are definite yeas, Gorsuch is a likely yea, Brown, Kagan, and Sotomayor are definite nays, and Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett are total wild cards. So, what happens on the 6th is anyone's guess.
I have a feeling though that if decide against hearing the case, we may actually be at the "military is the only way" portion of the program. Maybe we haven't run out of avenues, but it seems like every legal challenge regarding election fraud has been cast down. This argument put forth by the Brunsons is a novel approach, but I don't know how many other types of arguments can be put forth that are plausible. This seems like a Hail Mary, and if it doesn't go forward, then no other legal avenue is possible. I don't think I'm dooming, just wondering if shutting this door opens another.