A Twitter user replied to a tweet for the original posting of this story.
“Truth Rising: Loy Brunson Supreme Court case #22-380 was RUSHED to the #SCOTUS at THEIR REQUEST on the basis of a National Emergency! Loy Brunson explains this case which will be heard on January 6th! youtu.be/5kiwbsR2CM8 via
I cannot be certain what this particular user thinks is going on but let’s look at the two assertions being represented here:
“Loy Brunson Supreme Court case #22-380 was RUSHED to the #SCOTUS at THEIR REQUEST on the basis of a National Emergency!”
Here the individual appears to assert that Docket #22-380 was rushed to SCOTUS at the “request” of SCOTUS on the basis of a National Emergency,” and the linked youtube video that I did watch at the time of the original posting for this story was used I believe to be the evidence of the assertion.
“Loy Brunson explains this case which will be heard on January 6th!”
This assertion appears to state that Loy Brunson is explaining that the case will be heard, i.e. taking oral arguments on the case, on January 6th.
The first assertion is a half-truth while the second assertion is entirely incorrect. What Mr. Brunson explained is that he and his brother use rule 11 of the Supreme Court Rules(document pg 10).
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before Judgment
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).
What has occurred is that the petitioner sought to bypass the court of appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not contact the petitioner prior to the petitioner seeking to submit a petition for a writ of certiorari under rule 11. The clerk of the court then made contact with the petitioner to get all the necessary documents to the SCOTUS, and the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on October 20, 2022.
On November 23, 2022, the Attorney of record for the United States filed a waiver of the right of the respondent to respond which states, “The Government hereby waives its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
As a result of this waiver, the petition and all available documents were distributed for conference on January 6, 2023. A conference as Brunson has explained is not a hearing where oral arguments will take place. This is the process where the justices will decide “If” they will hear oral arguments.
Since the original posting of this story, an Amicus Brief has been filed with the court by Attorney Robert E. Thomas out of Nevada, representing Paul Preston and the New California State, in support of the Petitioner. This brief concludes thusly:
“For these and all the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari should be granted, and, further, granted on its face without necessity of a hearing.”
Whether or not the SCOTUS decides to hear Oral arguments in this case before the lower courts make their decision does not bother me. But the Amicus Brief that has been filed scares the blazes out of me, it outright states that the SCOTUS should just make a summary judgment to grant the Petition in its entirety without hearing arguments. In essence not give the Government the opportunity to defend its position.
If SCOTUS does what Attorney Robert E Thomas concludes in his Amicus Brief I predict we will be in for some very dark times, in my opinion.