BREAKING! Supreme Court Considers Case Seeking to Overturn 2020 Presidential Election

[Lastamender]

What fraud? Your ilk wouldn't be begging for investigations if they had the evidence to back the claim.

You started with the accusation, and have been desperately scrambling to find evidence to back it up ever since.

And failing spectacularly. You've literally never been right on any Big Lie legal prediction you've ever made. Your record of failure....is perfect.

No, the record of corruption and denial is perfect. Recent revelations have proven the American people are not, and have not, been getting the truth for over 60 years.

 

[Skylar]

No, the record of corruption and denial is perfect. Recent revelations have proven the American people are not, and have not, been getting the truth for over 60 years.

Says you, citing you again. And you're not a great source.

You've literally never been right in predicting any legal outcome related to your elaborate 'big lie' fantasy. Not once. Every case that you insisted was going to overturn the election in favor of Trump, didn't. Every instance of the courts removing Biden, didn't. Every legal 'bombshell' fizzled. Every 'breaking news' turned out to be yet another stale pile of meaningless pseud-legal gibberish. Nor have you demonstrated the slightest understanding of even the processes involved.

Back in reality, Brunson v. Adams hasn't even managed a writ of certiorari. Nor could the election 2 years ago be 'overturned' by this case, as there's no legal provision for ovrerturning a finished presidential election in the constitution. You're clinging to meaningless pseudo-legal fantasies....

....because you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Lastamender]

Says you, citing you again. And you're not a great source.

You've literally never been right in predicting any legal outcome related to your elaborate 'big lie' fantasy. Not once. Every case that you insisted was going to overturn the election in favor of Trump, didn't. Every instance of the courts removing Biden, didn't. Every legal 'bombshell' fizzled. Every 'breaking news' turned out to be yet another stale pile of meaningless pseud-legal gibberish. Nor have you demonstrated the slightest understanding of even the processes involved.

Back in reality, Brunson v. Adams hasn't even managed a writ of certiorari. Nor could the election 2 years ago be 'overturned' by this case, as there's no legal provision for ovrerturning a finished presidential election in the constitution. You're clinging to meaningless pseudo-legal fantasies....

....because you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I am right about the thorough corruption in our government. And that being a fact leaves the law out of it. Every branch of government has abused its power and no one is allowed to challenge them because of that abuse of power. You are a traitor that enables traitors. Deal with it.

 

[Skylar]

I am right about the thorough corruption in our government. And that being a fact leaves the law out of it. Every branch of government has abused its power and no one is allowed to challenge them because of that abuse of power. You are a traitor that enables traitors. Deal with it.

Again, says you. Its the same circular argument: you citing your beliefs as evidence.

Yet in actual legal outcomes, your beliefs have been a perfect failure for predicting real world outcomes.

Your source is you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Do you even realize the significance of Brunson v. Adams not having so much as a writ of certiorari?

 

[Lastamender]

Again, says you. Its the same circular argument: you citing your beliefs as evidence.

Yet in actual legal outcomes, your beliefs have been a perfect failure for predicting real world outcomes.

Your source is you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Do you even realize the significance of Brunson v. Adams not having so much as a writ of certiorari?

Tell us how it got to the SC. I'll wait.

 

[Skylar]

Tell us how it got to the SC. I'll wait.

It didn't 'get to the Supreme Court'. They have not yet issued a writ of cert. Nor is there the slightest indication that they will. Until that writ is issued, they haven't agreed to judge the case.

You don't even know so much as the processes involved. You don't even know what a writ of certiorari is, or how its relevant to Brunson v. Adams. Yet in your ignorance and perfect record of failure of predicting legal outcomes, you remain absolutely certain that you know how this is going to go.

That certainty is unearned. You have nothing to back it, no expertise, no understanding of the processes or legal arguments, no track record of prediction.

Just you, citing you, failing constantly. This is why its so difficult to take your latest assurances of legal outcomes seriously.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and shocker of shockers. Here's the January calendar for the USSC. There's no mention of a January 6th 2023 hearing for Brunson v. Adams. In fact, the first time the USSC will meet for hearings in January 2023 is on January 9th.

Supreme Court of the United State: Monthly Argument Calendar

You're confusing a distribution for conference with an actual hearing. Distribution for conference is automatic with ANY paid request for a writ of certiorari. If you have $300 and submit a PDF to the USSC, it will reach a conference. If you wanted to submit a PDF brief on how Cap't Crunch conspired with the ghost of Hugo Chavez to throw the 2020 election....and you paid $300 to request your writ, it would reach conference.