Seriously, You dont know what you're talking about. All Supreme Court cases begin as a Writ of Certorari. This Brunson case has been distributed for Committee, which means the Court is not guaranteed to decide the case, but at least two Justices want to take up the case.
You are dead wrong. This case has also been looked at and analyzed by other very reputable law scholars and they have no derogations regarding. You say you’d bet all your money that you’re right. You don’t need to do that since you probably have very little anyway but I challenge you to commit to quitting your third-rate program when proven wrong.
You're off track and wanting us to look at him, and judge him by his looks and money? You didn't even bring up the MAIN point in the case. CONgress was supposed to look at the election when it's under dispute, and they didn't. Undeniable. I don't know if there is a law or rule requiring it. Doesn't really matter. The election wasn't properly certified, approved or voted on like it was supposed to be. Again undeniable. So what's the solution? You didn't mention the different options they gave the court either. Not a very thorough or on topic job by you Luke. Over half the article was off topic, listening to yourself talk. Good luck!
Seriously, You dont know what you're talking about. All Supreme Court cases begin as a Writ of Certorari. This Brunson case has been distributed for Committee, which means the Court is not guaranteed to decide the case, but at least two Justices want to take up the case.
It isnt a "psy-op" You're making things up.
You are dead wrong. This case has also been looked at and analyzed by other very reputable law scholars and they have no derogations regarding. You say you’d bet all your money that you’re right. You don’t need to do that since you probably have very little anyway but I challenge you to commit to quitting your third-rate program when proven wrong.
You're off track and wanting us to look at him, and judge him by his looks and money? You didn't even bring up the MAIN point in the case. CONgress was supposed to look at the election when it's under dispute, and they didn't. Undeniable. I don't know if there is a law or rule requiring it. Doesn't really matter. The election wasn't properly certified, approved or voted on like it was supposed to be. Again undeniable. So what's the solution? You didn't mention the different options they gave the court either. Not a very thorough or on topic job by you Luke. Over half the article was off topic, listening to yourself talk. Good luck!