My basis is that it’s written extremely poorly. A lot of it is full of run-on sentences and phrases that don’t really make sense. Whole sections seem like unwieldy gibberish written by someone with a 7th grade reading level and an over-reliance on dictionary.com. This sentence was especially bad:

“The doctrine of the object principle of justice is couched by the supreme law of the land, and sets in motion to provide our court system to be the most just, limited, highly effective and easy to understand, and infuses our court system to be the most highly respected and dearly admired court system greater than the world has ever seen.”

Furthermore, a lot of the legal reasoning in the briefing is incorrect. The briefing misinterprets key aspects of the constitution. And I’m not saying this to come up with some Weasley excuse. Take this part for example:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Therefore, the purpose of the Constitution was written to protect our self evident rights. The Constitution cannot be construed by any means, by any legislative, judicial and executive bodies, by any court of law to deny or disparage our rights.

What the briefing here is saying is that the quote at the beginning - which is the 9th amendment (part of the bill of rights) prevents the government from using the construction as justification for “disparaging our rights”. Presumably, the argument follows that by certifying a false election, every member of congress, the new administration, and the vice president (who presided over certification) disparaged our rights and thus broke the 9th amendment. That line of reasoning, unfortunately, is based off a complete misunderstanding of what the 9th amendment says. The reason the bill of rights is made up of 10 amendments and isn’t just included in the main text of the Constitution is because many founding fathers worried naming specific rights in the constitution would create the impression that any right not named was not protected. The founding fathers believed that humans are born with certain inalienable rights, and that those rights can be discovered using our reasoning. They did not, however, claim to be aware of all those rights. The concerns over including specific rights became a conflict when other founding fathers argued including no rights at all in the constitution would make Trampling them far too easy. As a compromise, they created the constitution without any specific rights and then afterwards passed a package of 10 amendments which together form a “bill of rights” explaining the fundamental rights the founders could think of and decided were worth mentioning in writing. Among those, was the 9th amendment, which - going back to the original concerns - states that the specific declaration (“enumeration”) of rights within the constitution does not mean (“shall not be construed”)those rights which are not mentioned (“retained by the people”) do not exist (“deny or disparage”). TLDR: the 9th amendment doesn’t mean Congress can’t cite the constitution when disparaging rights. Of course, Congress can’t pass unconditional laws - but that rule has nothing to do with the 9th amendment.

There’s a lot more to it than just that, but basically it’s full off assumptions, leaps that the court doesn’t agree with (like relying heavily on the court accepting de-facto that the election when stolen, despite all legally-stalled precedent -which is what SCOTUS will follow- currently not saying that) and misunderstanding of legal jargon. IMO the briefing also doesn’t do enough to establish standing, as it only says that Biden is commuting unspecified ‘constant’ national Security violations which then somehow indirectly impact the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims the previous court’s explanation of why it found he lacked standing insufficient, so he just didn’t include it at all and didn’t bother to specifically respond to it. That’s not how appeals work. You have to show that you specifically responding to the decision of a lower court and appeal it up, not just say “they’re wrong. I explained why in my original filing” because if you had that kind of argument in your original filing, you think you would have won the case in the first place. Of course, funny business could have been involved in the lower court, and if that were the case SCOTUS should take up the case; but, the plaintiff failed to establish in the briefing that the lower judges showed bias in their decision. Maybe they did, but the Supreme Court isn’t gonna take the plaintiff on the benefit of the doubt. This is why you shouldn’t represent yourself. If Brunson actually had a lawyer he might have avoided these mistakes.

P.S. IM NOT SAYING THE BRIEFING HAS NO MERIT Im saying that the way it is written - namely a few mistakes and failures to appreciate the seriousness with which SCOTUS takes cases - means that SCOTUS is extremely likely to throw out the case. If they took it, it seems like they’d basically need to hand-hold the plaintiff through the legal system and make his case for him - something I see almost no chance of SCOTUS doing considering the plaintiff is literally asking for the removal and incarceration of the entire elected (fraudulently or otherwise) federal government.