#Brunson v. Adams - MAGAts Version of Birthers Hopium / ReVote2017 SCOTUS Case

[Dr. Ken]

Reminds me of how excited birthers got when one of their cases went to conference and we all know how those turned out

[noblepa]

The case was scheduled to be on the agenda for conference on Friday. When will we know their decision? Tomorrow? Today is MLK day, so I assume that the court is closed.

I don't understand why the court scheduled this for conference. It is my understanding that, given the thousands of cases for which a petition for cert is filed, court staffers sift through the cases to eliminate the ones that are meritless, or do not involve a constitutional issue that might warrant the court's attention and only pass on the few hundred that the court might want to hear. Surely those staffers know that this case was rejected the last time it was brought up in conference. The Brunsons have raised no new issues and are essentially saying "please give us another chance".

[Reality Check]

The case was scheduled to be on the agenda for conference on Friday. When will we know their decision? Tomorrow? Today is MLK day, so I assume that the court is closed.

I don't understand why the court scheduled this for conference. It is my understanding that, given the thousands of cases for which a petition for cert is filed, court staffers sift through the cases to eliminate the ones that are meritless, or do not involve a constitutional issue that might warrant the court's attention and only pass on the few hundred that the court might want to hear. Surely those staffers know that this case was rejected the last time it was brought up in conference. The Brunsons have raised no new issues and are essentially saying "please give us another chance".

I think you meant Presidents' Day. Yes, it is closed on all federal holidays. Every petition submitted to the SC is "scheduled for conference" including silly ones like Brunson v Adams petition for rehearing. What this actually means is that group of clerks go through the mound of petitions and weeds out the ones that have no chance. Each petition is assigned to a particular conference day but the Justices never see most of the hundreds that get denied.

As I recall most of the Justices have agreed to an arrangement where petitions go to a pool of clerks who filter out the ones that aren't every going to make it.

[northland10]

The case was scheduled to be on the agenda for conference on Friday. When will we know their decision? Tomorrow? Today is MLK day, so I assume that the court is closed.

I don't understand why the court scheduled this for conference. It is my understanding that, given the thousands of cases for which a petition for cert is filed, court staffers sift through the cases to eliminate the ones that are meritless, or do not involve a constitutional issue that might warrant the court's attention and only pass on the few hundred that the court might want to hear. Surely those staffers know that this case was rejected the last time it was brought up in conference. The Brunsons have raised no new issues and are essentially saying "please give us another chance".

I think you meant Presidents' Day. Yes, it is closed on all federal holidays. Every petition submitted to the SC is "scheduled for conference" including silly ones like Brunson v Adams petition for rehearing. What this actually means is that group of clerks go through the mound of petitions and weeds out the ones that have no chance. Each petition is assigned to a particular conference day but the Justices never see most of the hundreds that get denied.

As I recall most of the Justices have agreed to an arrangement where petitions go to a pool of clerks who filter out the ones that aren't every going to make it.

The only difference for rehearings is during the summer months. They usually do a mass dismissal of those in the summer instead of waiting for the long conference at the beginning of the next session.

At one point, Alito and Gorsuch were not participating in the cert pool (the pooling of the clerks to review the petitions) but that may have changed.

In short, the clerks go through the petitions and create summaries. I don't know if they create summaries for every petition. The ones worthy of extra discussion get put on a discussion list for the conference. It is probably safe to say Brunson did not make it to the list on the original petition, and the rehearing is already a dead letter.

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how many denied cert petitions were ever granted cert after a petition for rehearing? Since they are clear that rehearings are disfavored and will only be granted if there was some change since the original petition, I imagine it would be rare for them to be accepted. Those that might have been were already likely closer to being accepted, and a response to the cert would have already been filed or requested by a justice.

[Reality Check]

Rehearing denied.

Screenshot 2023-02-21 at 09-36-27 Order List (02_21_2023) - 022123zor_g20h.pdf.png (74.04 KiB) Viewed 1256 times

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_g20h.pdf

[realist]

Rehearing denied.
Screenshot 2023-02-21 at 09-36-27 Order List (02_21_2023) - 022123zor_g20h.pdf.png
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_g20h.pdf

I’m SHOCKED!!

[northland10]

[bob]

Thanks, Scir, that's insane. Looked up that writer, she went from Columbia Journalism major to a ridiculous hack in just a few years. Newsweek is worthless now, damn shame for a news source with such a grand history. Shame on you, Fatma.

That article was shockingly bad, even by new-Newsweek's standards. I've read RWNJ blogs with a better grasp of the case.

Mentioned we're following this train wreck here. Brunsons think they are so clever... when this fails, they think they can bring an identical case that's languished in an appeals court.

A different Brunson brother has another (but essentially the same) case pending down in the district court, with a motion to dismiss looming. So they can continue this courts-as-a-grift until 2024. And then start all over again.

* * *

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how many denied cert petitions were ever granted cert after a petition for rehearing?

I saw on Twitter the last granted rehearing petition occurred around 2017. And that was due only to a very recent change in the law.

They basically are denied as a matter of course. Especially when it takes four votes to grant cert., but five to grant rehearing.

* * *

"For completeness":

and

[Luke]

Missed seeing you, Bob! Hope all is well, friend.

Shades of Carl Gallups' "Big 'Plan A'"! Or Rev Dr Laity Esq's Plan B. Here it comes... Brunson Bros. PLAN C.







OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 31s
Replying to @BrunsonSCOTUS
#BrunsonBrothers, don't you feel bad still raising money & hopium when there's zero chance of success? The Supreme Court CAN NOT grant the relief you want. 2 lower courts denied #BrunsonvAdams & now a 2nd SCOTUS denial. Go fund it yourselves, refund the marks' money, & apologize.

[northland10]

Out of curiosity, does anybody know how many denied cert petitions were ever granted cert after a petition for rehearing?

I saw on Twitter the last granted rehearing petition occurred around 2017. And that was due only to a very recent change in the law.

They basically are denied as a matter of course. Especially when it takes four votes to grant cert., but five to grant rehearing.

I went searching and was able to find one from the October 2017 term where the court granted rehearing and GVR (granted, vacate, remand) which was done due to a change of law (a recent SCOTUS ruling made which resolved a conflict between circuits, I think).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/doc ... -6259.html

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 5_2121.pdf

Maybe this was the one mentioned in the Tweet.

Given that it was a criminal case and the respondent (the US government) filed a response, I suspect the case was already high on the consideration list anyway. This is greatly different from the Brunson case and all the other goofball cases we see (including GILs' cases).

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

But, but, Brunson is SO SINCERE!

[scirreeve]

Even though it was a big fail they are still grifting (of course).

[noblepa]

Even though it was a big fail they are still grifting (of course).

"four more opportunities to petition for rehearing"?????

Is he really saying that one can nag SCOTUS six times about the same case? Will they be stupid enough to actually file yet another petition for rehearing?

At what point will the Justices direct the clerk to refuse to accept, let alone file, anything from these bozos?

[northland10]

Even though it was a big fail they are still grifting (of course).

"four more opportunities to petition for rehearing"?????

Is he really saying that one can nag SCOTUS six times about the same case? Will they be stupid enough to actually file yet another petition for rehearing?

At what point will the Justices direct the clerk to refuse to accept, let alone file, anything from these bozos?

I was going to suggest it was because of his brother's case, still in the district court, that they could claim 4 more times, but then I saw they were claiming four more times with the current SCOTUS case number. Stupid grifters grifting the stupid.

All I can figure is they think they can start submitting it to a different justice like is done with applications so that they can get it by one of the five needed to get a majority, or something. Just ignore the fact that it was already submitted to the entire court (as would also normally be done if somebody resubmitted an application to another justice).

[bob]

The Brunson Grifters, unsurprising, are bad at the law.

You get one petition for rehearing, not five.

The Shipping Clerk will just bounce anything filed at this point.

And Brunson Grifters then will performatively rend their garments. And then tout the other brother's case in D. Utah.

[keith]

Now that they've struck out at the SCOTUS, they can take it to the Hague.

[bob]

Now that they've struck out at the SCOTUS, they can take it to the Hague.

Yup. The ICC, the UN, etc.

There's no limit to the number of organizations with no jurisdiction over the United States.

[Luke]

Their failure can be blamed on two things they failed to do.

1. No SHERIFF'S KITS. Mike Volin could have whipped up a few dozen with an extra section on Sheriffs arresting SCOTUS justices for not obeying their commands.

2. Didn't hire Orly Taitz, civil rights decedent attorney, who would have contacted UN Human Rights Commission in The Hague (she has major connections there) to intervene. And she could have written powerful papers.

On a bright note, the number of stupid MAGAts that are true believers has dropped substantially. There are a few Twitter accounts (including some jerk and Dee In Fl @FamousSheymus1) who are spreading the word of the grift and fail here on many, many dummy posts. It's sinking in. There's still huge demand for hopium, to overturn the 2020 election etc, but now that it's been over 2 years, another election has happened, and the 2024 election is closer, even the dim-witted are realizing Q and the military aren't going to change things.

Far fewer rank-and-file MAGAts postings on Twitter (mentioned that in another post, I have a Clowns private list with 400 accounts -- the daily screamers/grifters are posting, but their engagement is way down and the non-celebrities are posting far, far less. I think they are going through the Clinton 2016 shock as we did, they just have it worse because carnival barkers kept saying any day now for years so they are only starting to process it. I bet a lot of them won't vote in 2024 (the disgraced loser brought a lot of people out that never voted before -- if he's the nominee, maybe they'll vote, but if he isn't, they will be discouraged and not bother. Many of those folks only came out to vote for Him). I encourage that by saying there's no chance he'll win anyway so why bother, have a beer, and watch a John Wayne movie festival that day.

Last thought -- these Brunsons revel in their stupidity, lack of legal knowledge, and lack of knowledge of civics. Posted an interview way upthread with one of them. He literally giggles like a kid on Christmas morning about basic, obvious information about the appellate process, like he discovered something secret that he cracked a safe to learn. He also reveled in his brother, with no legal experience, writing these briefs without help as if his "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington -- Drunk" act is going to be impressive. Only because of social media can this sort of nonsense turn into grift. And remember, we were just as tough on ReVote 2017 (I think I'm still banned by the girls and maybe Mark Walker (IIRC). Hopefully, seeing these massive fails will show the average voter to be a bit more discerning.

[bob]

Mark Small; he banned me and Mike D.

"For completeness":

[Luke]

He's gone insane, he snapped. This video is nuts. "The SCOTUS Nuclear Bomb". Now he's scared that Democrats will use the awesome power he was able to reveal!

[realist]

He's gone insane, he snapped. This video is nuts. "The SCOTUS Nuclear Bomb". Now he's scared that Democrats will use the awesome power he was able to reveal!

[Reality Check]

Now that they've struck out at the SCOTUS, they can take it to the Hague.

Didn't Orly Taitz actually do that?

[northland10]

Now that they've struck out at the SCOTUS, they can take it to the Hague.

Didn't Orly Taitz actually do that?

I do believe so.

[RTH10260]

She claimed to have registered as a lawyer at The Hague, it turned out to be simply some org aka "lawyers interested in the proceedings of the court". They did not let her file her inartful stuff.

[bob]

He's gone insane

"Gone"?

Dude wanted to toss two thirds of Congress, install the loser has-been, and a eleventy gazillion dollars for his troubles.

Always was insane.

* * *

Now that they've struck out at the SCOTUS, they can take it to the Hague.

Didn't Orly Taitz actually do that?

I do believe so.

IIRC, Taitz actually threw paper at the ICC. Oldbow would know; I can't be bothered presently to research.