Ok. So you also believe that the relief sought by Brunson is correct. It may not happen because of other factors. But on face of it, the case has enough merit to be ruled in favor of Brunson!
It's legitimate, though we should have seen better cases from Trump, and from the Electors who had their races stolen (after all, the people vote for ELECTORS, not for the presidential candidates). Texas and the other states who tried to sue, should have had their case heard by SCOTUS, but sadly SCOTUS for whatever reason, cucked and dismissed because of "lack of standing" (legal magick), even though the states had valid standing since it was a state v. state constitutional dispute. Unfortunately, I suspect that SCOTUS won't review Brunson relying on the same bullshit basis of "lacking standing."
Ok. So you also believe that the relief sought by Brunson is correct. It may not happen because of other factors. But on face of it, the case has enough merit to be ruled in favor of Brunson!
It's legitimate, though we should have seen better cases from Trump, and from the Electors who had their races stolen (after all, the people vote for ELECTORS, not for the presidential candidates). Texas and the other states who tried to sue, should have had their case heard by SCOTUS, but sadly SCOTUS for whatever reason, cucked and dismissed because of "lack of standing" (legal magick), even though the states had valid standing since it was a state v. state constitutional dispute. Unfortunately, I suspect that SCOTUS won't review Brunson relying on the same bullshit basis of "lacking standing."