Supreme Court Decision Pending In Little Known Case
(www.supremecourt.gov)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
Oh wow, even just reading the Questions Presented and the e-NOR-mous list of defendants tells me this is big. They're going after every fucking democrap & RINO in office and they're including some big names.
The only trouble with this is that every defendant is entitled to their own counsel and the resulting legal actions possible could fill a MOUNTAIN that could gag King Kong! And hundreds of lawyers against one Plaintiff's team of attorneys do not immediately present favorable odds.
However, TRUTH has a way of not needing to be defended the way deceptions need to be, so the main objective must be to focus on the FACTS as they contribute to proving the chronic lawlessness of the defendants.
I am not a lawologist, so this first-glance take on it should not be considered prophecy, just my gut reaction. And if little me can see this, how much more can those with pertinent experience see?
It's about legal definitions and how the lower court countered itself in those definitions with its decision. Definitions surrounding constitutionality as right to individuals vs mechanism of government.
Not sure how 'prophecy' gets involved there.
Currently the courts defend against Truth... and 'justice' is relative, as the parable of Solomon suggests.
thx for these added clarifications. Interpretations of definitions aren't very 'factish' but wild or twisted interpretations can be dynamited. Again, not a 'prediction', just my observation. This case should definitely expose the deep state's way of thinking for once & for all, so thx for your post because I didn't know this was going on. Juicy!!
it's my understanding the defendants (ALL OF THEM) failed to even reply to the plaintiffs motion for judicial review. this is strange any any case to say the least, nevermind a case with this many named defendants of such prominent/powerful positions. not sure how to interpret....they know it's going no where since they have judges/court under their thumb?...they are attempting to convince the court the matter is not worth their response (highly unlikely as even the most frivolous claims get responses calling out the frivolousness to get them dismissed)
just all around odd to me
wow that's the height of arrogance and over-confidence. I want that judge to consider their disrespect when it's his turn to communicate to the parties. Fair to say that they're going to pull 388 darrell brookses!