Tried to cover most of what's been said here and in the sticky yesterday. I gave a pretty thorough accounting of things and listed pros and cons about the case from both sides... or at least that was what I attempted to do.
Overall I feel like it's a good sign to see them continue to push the case and that there's always a chance that something extraordinary happens...
But it might be time to start tempering our expectations a tad and getting prepared for the next battles. In fact Rayland Brunson posted that Last Thursday! so it seems clear that even they were prepared for a rejection as the outcome, at least initially.
The thing is that Brunson has been a winner from a political/optics standpoint and attracted a lot of grassroots support and public outcry. It's good because it has cemented the fact that many people in our country STILL HAVE major grievances with 2020 and HAVE NOT LET IT GO. Our political class and the Justices have learned that there is an overwhelming groundswell intent on pushing them to remedy SOMETHING about the way all of it went down.
But, the case is just so flawed. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole for numerous reasons: pro se litigants, a huge legal remedy that is unenforceable by the Court, the scope of the case being far too wide in its terms, the actual allegations being very incogruous with the 6 pages of background given, etc etc. If it had a more narrow focus or the "ask" wasn't so massive I think it might have had a better shot at being taken up, but in the current form it's just a mess.
Hopefully it will end up being a LEAD IN to some other more focused case that speaks to what happened during 2020 that was specifically unlawful and/or the Constitutionality of things like immunity. I hate to see people got their bubbles burst about it, but we should remain realistic about things- justice wasn't and isn't ever going to come all at once, even though it SHOULD.
I posted on this yesterday following the news.
Tried to cover most of what's been said here and in the sticky yesterday. I gave a pretty thorough accounting of things and listed pros and cons about the case from both sides... or at least that was what I attempted to do.
Overall I feel like it's a good sign to see them continue to push the case and that there's always a chance that something extraordinary happens...
But it might be time to start tempering our expectations a tad and getting prepared for the next battles. In fact Rayland Brunson posted that Last Thursday! so it seems clear that even they were prepared for a rejection as the outcome, at least initially.
The thing is that Brunson has been a winner from a political/optics standpoint and attracted a lot of grassroots support and public outcry. It's good because it has cemented the fact that many people in our country STILL HAVE major grievances with 2020 and HAVE NOT LET IT GO. Our political class and the Justices have learned that there is an overwhelming groundswell intent on pushing them to remedy SOMETHING about the way all of it went down.
But, the case is just so flawed. It's trying to put a round peg in a square hole for numerous reasons: pro se litigants, a huge legal remedy that is unenforceable by the Court, the scope of the case being far too wide in its terms, the actual allegations being very incogruous with the 6 pages of background given, etc etc. If it had a more narrow focus or the "ask" wasn't so massive I think it might have had a better shot at being taken up, but in the current form it's just a mess.
Hopefully it will end up being a LEAD IN to some other more focused case that speaks to what happened during 2020 that was specifically unlawful and/or the Constitutionality of things like immunity. I hate to see people got their bubbles burst about it, but we should remain realistic about things- justice wasn't and isn't ever going to come all at once, even though it SHOULD.