To: TEXOKIE
People on your list might be interested in this take on the Brunson case. One of the authors is an expert in legal issues.
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2022/12/30/the-truth-about-the-brunson-case/
The Truth About the Brunson Case
I posted some excerpts here, but the article really needs to be red in entirety.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4119312/posts?page=1196#1196
Short version: The chances of SCOTUS taking it are slim to none, and slim left town.
1,328 posted on 1/2/2023, 2:25:17 PM by little jeremiah (Never worry about anything. Worry never solved any problem or moved any stone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1304 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I am pinging my list lj. (Please let me know if you want on or off my list.)
I am no longer concerned if the SCOTUS will or will not take up Brunson. Hostage posted an article by a law prof who maintains basically (my takeaway) that just the existence of Brunson is relevant, no matter what the court does with it.
If you have not seen that article, you might wish to do so at:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4119737/posts
:: just the existence of Brunson is relevant ::
just the existence of Brunson at such a high judicial level is relevant.
It is proven to be troublesome by the effort expended to minimize and stifle any objective reporting on it.
The for the ping.
Tracy Beanz is on the right track, accurate in assessment, but off on a few crucial details.
I’m not in the business of creating hopium in this. On its face. Brunson Brothers looks like a no-go. But I call out some facts that appear unusual, facts that are taken as hopium, but which shouldn’t be so taken. My thesis is Brunson will fail, but so will the US Supreme Court in failing it.
On the flip-side are those that go out of their way to create doom, darkness, futility, and get facts wrong in the process. The outcome they forecast may very well come to pass, but it’s what they get wrong in the analysis that I try to fill in with facts taken with lawyers and clerks experienced in the process.
First, Beanz and her crew find the online cert app and claim that Brunson Brothers are on the docket solely because they filled out the online cert application and paid the fee (and the required docs togo along with it). Anyone can do that, right? Correct, anyone can do it.
But the Beanz argument jumps to concluding Brunson is going to conference because application was filed and fee paid.
Wrong.
They’re missing steps.
At the conference, all nine Justices and their clerks sort through the conference list of cases to review and decide which are held back, denied, which are advanced forward to a regular hearing before the Court.
Conference Hearing Determines Who Will Go To Full Hearing.
Now here’s the thing .....
The number of Appeals per year (4 terms) to the Supreme Court is on the order of about 25,000 or so, or on average about 6,000 to 8,000 cases per term.
What Beanz is missing is the upcoming conference this coming Friday is not going to have the Justices wade through thousands and thousands of cases.
This is where the Clerks come in. We can expect the Clerks have a close working relationship with the Justices. They know which fundamental issues are ripe.
The Clerks screen the thousands of cert applications and their filings before the conference convenes. This is what Beanz leaves out.
The Clerks select from thousands, a hundred or so to be reviewed at conference.
The conference will select a couple dozen cases or so, that will be scheduled for a full Supreme Court hearing.
A Clerk selected the Brunson case for conference. Brunson will be reviewed this coming Friday, and will likely along with many others not advance to a full hearing before the Court.
But ..... the fact that it even made it to conference is a bit of a shocker, especially as it had to be accepted under Rule 11 which is another mountain to climb.
So Brunson has caught the attention of many in the legal, political, world because it is thought to be so radical as to dismiss it outright. But here it’s on the conference list.
Now the above is not intended to create hopium that this case has any chance of a full hearing, let alone a favorable ruling which is considered fantasy. But it’s unsettling to the legal world how it made it this far.
What I drew attention to is the case reflects what a lot of us are concerned about. The Brunson case reflects the angst of the American people.
To me, it’s not plaintiffs or defendants who are on trial here.
The US Supreme Court is on trial.