Brunson - CERTIORARI DENIED
SEE TOP COMMENT!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf
Page 5
22-380 BRUNSON, RALAND J. V. ADAMS, ALMA S., ET AL.
No, there is no mechanism in the Constitution to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court - the SCOTUS is the last and final word.
Brunson said two weeks ago, and again today, that if this is shot down they have other avenues and to hang in there. This possibility was apparently accounted for. We will see what’s next.
The Brunsons knew it would be shot down, and said so, but were not believed by anons clinging like barnacles to the thin raft of hope that SCOTUS would "save the Republic"
They repeatedly said it had a good chance.
https://files.catbox.moe/b6ux2w.jpg
Raland Brunson
The Petition was denied. We will now make our next move. A petition for reconsideration. Hang in there everyone.
Yes, a motion for reconsideration to the same justices that just refused to hear it. Expect the same result.
Exactly this is concerning that a new carrot A B C D on and on will continue
Should we be logical and see that many with no legal experience will continue to get mesmerized by the process of a possible grift here ..imho very concerning
Thoughts from a lawyer friend in intial case was the denial will most likely be based that it was a civil filing request of a criminal outcome ..
So this leaves me to believe as with your comments of knowledge ..nothing will occur and no appeal will be granted ( being SCOTUS) highest appeal How do we state this going forward to normies who are 100 going to state
Reality sometimes doesn’t want to be heard imho (:
Yes, but might as well tack on the Elon line "please pay $8" to every statement coming from those people. Because that's all they are doing. Fundraising.
something something same thing and expecting different results
Whether or not Jackson actually said it, the truism remains.
The power of SCOTUS rulings are dependent on who is in control of the other branches of the federal government, particularly the Executive branch which controls the military. Can't enforce anything without a POTUS willing to do so.
Also depends on who controls States governments. States can attempt to resist SCOTUS rulings. For instance, D controlled states labeling themselves "sanctuaries" where they not only refuse to enforce federal immigration law, but actively impede it. Or R controlled states who prior to the recent abortion ruling, continued to pass and enforce abortion bans despite the Court precedent of claiming that abortion was a constitutional right. Can you now see what the Left is freaking out over the possibility that Obergefell is overturned, which would embolden R states to support their marriage laws already on the books banning same-sex "marriage"?
Again, boils down to who has control of the real POWER... the military... or rather, the militia... the PEOPLE. All the world is in chess... moves, countermoves... risk assessment
There is also no mechanism in the Constitution that give the SCOTUS the power to remove legislatures from either house or the Executive. This was the relief Brunson V Adams was looking for, and that's why the SCOTUS didn't even entertain the case. It was totally flawed from the start. If the SCOTUS had the power to remove the POTUS then Trump would have been gone in his first term.
No argument here