What conditions do you think would have to prevail for them to decide to hear it, and what do you think the likely results would be of a decision against the status quo?
I don't think the Brunsen case will ever get to see the light of day honestly. It's not because the SCOTUS lacks the courage to do so, but I can only see more division and planned chaos being caused by the Brunsen case being heard, and verified.
I'm not a lawyer-pede, so I cannot give specific legal jargon to go with this.
The current path we're on still very much aligns with the LoW manual, not referring to the Devolution theory. I'll make a separate post here in a bit with more details on this.
If you're a journalist as this comes off as, please quote my username for maximum keks. Don't forget to let me know as well ;)
Edit: Here is the seperate thread covering it with much better detail.
Not at all, I expected them to deny the case again.
What conditions do you think would have to prevail for them to decide to hear it, and what do you think the likely results would be of a decision against the status quo?
I don't think the Brunsen case will ever get to see the light of day honestly. It's not because the SCOTUS lacks the courage to do so, but I can only see more division and planned chaos being caused by the Brunsen case being heard, and verified.
I'm not a lawyer-pede, so I cannot give specific legal jargon to go with this.
The current path we're on still very much aligns with the LoW manual, not referring to the Devolution theory. I'll make a separate post here in a bit with more details on this.
If you're a journalist as this comes off as, please quote my username for maximum keks. Don't forget to let me know as well ;)
Edit: Here is the seperate thread covering it with much better detail.