The court didn’t accept the case, they rejected it on Jan 9 2023 and then on Feb 21 refused Brunson’s request that they reconsider the initial rejection.
Brunson claimed that he had a rule 11 case, but the court disagreed. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
They tossed it for good, on Feb 21 2023. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-380.html
All of the Brunson cases are stone-cold dead - cert denied. There’s no source for this talk of a non-disclosure agreement, even if there was one it wouldn’t do what people are saying it would, and he can’t have won his case because it was never even argued.
Sorry, this stuff is hopium being pushed by someone who doesn’t understand the legal issues here.
The VP’s power as president of the Senate is pretty much zero except when there is a tied vote - then they get to break the tie. But other than that…. No power to bring things up for a vote, no power to stop a vote, no power over committee assignments, no power to change the Senate rules, and certainly no power to unseat the majority leader.
This story is pretty much totally bogus. A Dutch court ruled that a civil case against Bourla could proceed but that’s about it. No indictment, no criminal charges, no trial, and because it’s a civil case no possibility of jail time or other criminal punishment.
These 98000 aren’t non-citizens, they are people whose driver’s licenses were first issued before 1996. They were supposed to be asked submit some additional proof of citizenship (a license issued after 1996 was automatically good) but owing to a DMV screwup it didn’t happen.
37% of them are registered Republicans.
And this ruling only applies to the races for Arizona state office, they’ve been eligible to vote for federal office (president, VP, senator, representative) all along and unrelated to this case.
This is total crap. Is there anyone here who doesn’t know that “Shared from a friend. Passing it on” means “no valid source anywhere”? And this post won’t even say which state’s “Poll Manager” training they went through.
Writing on a ballot doesn’t disqualify it. even if there’s enough marking that the machine can’t read the ballot, the machine spits it back out and then it goes through the spoiled ballot process (You get a new ballot to fill out, the spoiled ballot is marked with overvotes in all races so it can’t slip back in, and the whole thing is logged and the spoiled ballot filed for the post-election audit),.
Focusing on the percentages may be counterproductive when we consider that
- the mixed-race Jamaican ancestors might as well have been 100% black for all cultural and social purposes. Mixed was black back then (and still is, in many people’s minds).
- Howard University and Alpha Kappa Alpha are solidly in the mainstream of the African-American identity.
That’s not an accurate reading of Minor vs Happersett. In fact Justice Waite deliberately and explicitly chose not to establish that precedent in his ruling:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens…. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [the disagreement about what makes a natural-born citizen]. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
That is, Minor was the child of citizens so the court could proceed without taking on the question of the children of non-citizens and that’s what they did.
Nothing is going on. These “delegations” are routinely issued by every administration since forever; they’re how the boss (that’s the president) tells their subordinates (that’s the cabinet officers) to do something. For example, section 104(a)(1) of the “Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act” is Congress asking for a report on what Russian assets are under American control, and this document is Biden telling the treasury secretary to do it.
The 22nd amendment says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”.
The argument (which is somewhere between delusional and deranged) is that if someone is elected VP and then succeeds to the presidency they haven’t been “elected” to the office so are eligible to serve.
This SCOTUS ruling doesn’t say anything like what the article says. It’s here if you want to see what it does say: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-529_1b7d.pdf
TL;DR: New York State law requires that banks must pay interest on home mortgage escrow accounts. Second circuit ruled that this law conflicted with federal laws for nationally chartered banks. SCOTUS ruled that the second circuit didn’t do the analysis of the conflict properly and sent it back to the second circuit.
They could have left it in limbo, but that would have been a relist which isn’t what happened here.
They could have sent it back to the lower court, but they do that by granting cert, then after oral argument releasing an opinion explaining what the lower court got wrong and directing the lower court to act in accordance with the opinion.
What they did, in the Jan 9 order (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zor_p860.pdf) is deny cert. That kills the case dead forever.