Agreed. Multiple people are making arguments against the Brunson SC case, and they all seem logical, except for a few small details.

WHY did the SC initially accept the Brunson case under Rule 11? Why did the SC accept the case at all?

WHY did the SC help to expedite the Brunson case and ask them to add more findings to it before it was submitted?

WHY did the SC ask the Brunsons to rush the submission of their case as soon as possible?

WHY did the SC accept the case to be voted on in conference immediately after it was submitted, and schedule the conference vote for ... Jan 6th?

Bottom line: if the critics are correct, the Brunson case should never have been accepted for a conference vote in the first place. The SC had multiple opportunities to easily ignore the case and just let it die. If the case has no merit, that would have been the logical and expected outcome.

Instead, the SC did the opposite at every stage of its progress. Why did the SC do all of those "illogical" things for a case that has no merit? If the critics are correct, then the behavior of the SC throughout this entire process makes no sense at all.

Edit: I forgot one - why did the solicitor general take over for all 388 defendants, and then immediately waive their right to contest the case for all of them? That was very interesting all by itself.

Agreed. Multiple people are making arguments against the Brunson SC case, and they all seem logical, except for a few small details.

WHY did the SC initially accept the Brunson case under Rule 11? Why did the SC accept the case at all?

WHY did the SC help to expedite the Brunson case and ask them to add more findings to it before it was submitted?

WHY did the SC ask the Brunsons to rush the submission of their case as soon as possible?

WHY did the SC accept the case to be voted on in conference immediately after it was submitted, and schedule the conference vote for ... Jan 6th?

Bottom line: if the critics are correct, the Brunson case should never have been accepted for a conference vote in the first place. The SC had multiple opportunities to easily ignore the case and just let it die. If the case has no merit, that would have been the logical and expected outcome.

Instead, the SC did the opposite at every stage of its progress. Why did the SC do all of those "illogical" things for a case that has no merit? If the critics are correct, then the behavior of the SC throughout this entire process makes no sense at all.

Edit: I forgot one - why did the solicitor general take over the case for all 388 defendants in the case, and then immediately waive their right to contest the case for all of the defendants? That was very interesting all by itself.

Agreed. Multiple people are making arguments against the Brunson SC case, and they all seem logical, except for a few small details.

WHY did the SC initially accept the Brunson case under Rule 11? Why did the SC accept the case at all?

WHY did the SC help to expedite the Brunson case and ask them to add more findings to it before it was submitted?

WHY did the SC ask the Brunsons to rush the submission of their case as soon as possible?

WHY did the SC accept the case to be voted on in conference immediately after it was submitted, and schedule the conference vote for ... Jan 6th?

Bottom line: if the critics are correct, the Brunson case should never have been accepted for a conference vote in the first place. The SC had multiple opportunities to easily ignore the case and just let it die. If the case has no merit, that would have been the logical and expected outcome.

Instead, the SC did the opposite at every stage of its progress. Why did the SC do all of those "illogical" things for a case that has no merit? If the critics are correct, then the behavior of the SC throughout this entire process makes no sense at all.