Mr. Brunson answers this and notes this case has been taken as a case of national emergency... watch the video as I think he answers the possibilities and the Courts authority on this well
Brunson was allowed to submit his petition under Rule 11. That doesn't at all mean that the petition has been approved. The case status is currently "scheduled for conference" which means that, on January 6th, all that will happen is that the Court will state whether or not they are going to hear the case.
It is true that most petitions which are accepted for review under Rule 11 are then granted certiorari. But still, it is completely false to say that the conference date is when the Court "starts hearing the case".
Correct. And I am on the record about how I feel about this case. People interested can review my history. Needless to say, I predict 0 of 9 votes to take this case. And even if they did, they aren't trying the case, the issue before the court is whether the district court erred in finding no subject matter jurisdiction. In the bizarre event that SCOTUS takes this case, they won't be talking about national security, fraud, or hearing any evidence. It will be a legal analysis as to whether the complaint has subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts or not. Not a hint more than this.
If they did somehow find subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is just going to boot it on remand for some other shortcoming.
It does not appear that rule 11 is in play. The docket says its on appeal from 10th circuit. So there is no bypassing of the appellate courts here. And even if rule 11 was in play, it means very little. States have an equivalent of rule 11 and it is used regularly.
Oh, if this guy is a "Constitutional Scholar" then I am both the King and Queen of England. And maybe even a prince.
Because it is a case of national security, it can be decided whenever including on 1/6 or even earlier by SCOTUS and that also without further hearing from any of the parties involved!
No.
Whoever wrote this is either incompetent, or psyopping.
The Supreme Court will decide on Jan 6 whether or not they are going to hear the case.
Mr. Brunson answers this and notes this case has been taken as a case of national emergency... watch the video as I think he answers the possibilities and the Courts authority on this well
Brunson was allowed to submit his petition under Rule 11. That doesn't at all mean that the petition has been approved. The case status is currently "scheduled for conference" which means that, on January 6th, all that will happen is that the Court will state whether or not they are going to hear the case.
It is true that most petitions which are accepted for review under Rule 11 are then granted certiorari. But still, it is completely false to say that the conference date is when the Court "starts hearing the case".
Correct. And I am on the record about how I feel about this case. People interested can review my history. Needless to say, I predict 0 of 9 votes to take this case. And even if they did, they aren't trying the case, the issue before the court is whether the district court erred in finding no subject matter jurisdiction. In the bizarre event that SCOTUS takes this case, they won't be talking about national security, fraud, or hearing any evidence. It will be a legal analysis as to whether the complaint has subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts or not. Not a hint more than this.
If they did somehow find subject matter jurisdiction, the district court is just going to boot it on remand for some other shortcoming.
It does not appear that rule 11 is in play. The docket says its on appeal from 10th circuit. So there is no bypassing of the appellate courts here. And even if rule 11 was in play, it means very little. States have an equivalent of rule 11 and it is used regularly.
Oh, if this guy is a "Constitutional Scholar" then I am both the King and Queen of England. And maybe even a prince.
Because it is a case of national security, it can be decided whenever including on 1/6 or even earlier by SCOTUS and that also without further hearing from any of the parties involved!