Brunson petition denied. They are resubmitting, send your letters!
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (35)
sorted by:
Not dooming, but why would we expect the outcome of a motion for reconsideration to be any different? It’s the same court with the same justices.
They're resubmitting with "pretty please with sprinkles on top?"
Right. In an interview I watched a couple weeks ago with the Brunson brother named in this, he said not to worry if it gets knocked down because they have other avenues. But I just don’t see how we get SCOTUS to look at it if they’ve already rejected it. If concerns over national security aren’t enough, nothing is.
I was excited when I first heard about Brunson. Then, grabbed by my ankles and slammed back down to Earth. This article is why -
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the-truth-about-the-brunson-case/
Yes. As soon as I read that article, I knew Brunson wasn't going anywhere.
That’s all exactly right.
It depends if they 'dismissed with prejudice' or not. But IIRC it would have to go thru County / State / District / Supreme all over again once Supremes spike a case.
It not dismissed at all - the court refused to hear it. That means the ruling of the 10th circuit stands.
Wheel that squeaks? 👏🏻
It’s a long shot of a long shot.
Maybe, but so was the Delaware crossing.
Doesn't that mean that the Supreme Court could be liable for aiding and abetting treasonous behavior? So maybe they should be tried for treason themselves? I mean, really.....
Every institution has to be proven corrupt before the military can take action hence why the military is the only way
Guess so
Supreme Court has dominion over the CAAF (top of Military Tribunal chain) and can do whatever they want... in fact they just flipped a case a year or so ago with Alito leading the charge.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_press/2020/year-end-2020/scotus-unanimously-overturns-military-court-ruling/
Regardless of whether there is standing or not ( I believe there is), this case is way too big for the SC to even touch with a 100ft pole. The removal of hundreds of politicians for essentially deeming their actions treasonous is what we all want to see because of what they did.
To uphold the constitution is what the SC is here for but we know as a collective, they are chicken shit and ruling in favor of this would put their lives at greater stake than Row v. Wade ever did. They don't have it in them and we on GAW should know (and accept) this by now so to doom about this seems silly. Time to keep grounded and realistic Frens.
Question: Is there a way to appeal to something higher than the Supreme Court in the US (on Earth that is , not Biblical things) ?
Answer: No.
Military law, established months before the constitution.
Supremes > Military Courts and can reverse decisions. They've taken up 9 CAAF (top Military Tribunal court) cases last 20 years.
1: https://www.lawfareblog.com/are-military-courts-really-just-civilian-criminal-courts
2: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/death_penalty_representation/project_press/2020/year-end-2020/scotus-unanimously-overturns-military-court-ruling/
The Brunson case is asking SCOTUS to remove sitting “elected” officials.
There’s nowhere in the constitution that allows that action, and we should be very happy about that.
Trump wouldn’t even have last 5 seconds as POTUS if the remedy Brunson is asking for was a possibility.
What was the basis??
The remedy the Brunson case is asking for is not constitutional.
The Legislative Branch (Congress) is the only one with the power to remove sitting members of the other two branches—or sitting members of Congress itself.
Imaging if SCOTUS could remove members of the other two branches?
Trump wouldn’t have last a second as POTUS.
Summary disposition, just like most cases. They are under no obligation to entertain the case you filed, regardless of how helpful the Supreme Court clerks are in helping you to file it. Legal pedes on here called it a long time back, but they were overshadowed by all us hopium addicts.
I noticed quite a few anons were putting a lot of stock in how helpful the clerks were. I guess they thought it meant the clerks thought the SC would hear the case and find in favor of Brunson?
We have no idea how helpful clerks are with other cases, really. Maybe they're super helpful with everyone? Maybe they thought that going the extra mile would stop people from saying the SC was against them from the start?
🤷♀️
Elsewhere in this forum a lawyer posted that the Supreme Court clerks are the most helpful clerks of any court anywhere.
Do you really wants cats and dogs sleeping together? Mass hysteria?
Said this yesterday about something else, but here is my surprised face: '_'
Where is that post from?
Screenshot I took from Fascistbook. I follow him.
Thanks