>>18067846

>a couple days until brunson

Brunson is scheduled for a simple conference on Jan. 6. The SC has three conference days scheduled for January. One of them is this Friday. Conferences are routine meetings where the justices consider petitions for hearings. If four or more justices agree to grant a petitioner a hearing, then a hearing is scheduled. No one will be gotten rid of due to a SC conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/

https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx

Conference Days: The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review. The building is open to the public but the Justices do not take the Bench.

>>18068146

Your inability to engage in a discussion based on facts and your need to resort to ad-hominin name-calling are clear indicators of a lost argument, Anon.

>>18068236

>you have not thought it through.

On the contrary, Anon. The process is rather simple. A petitioner files a petition for a hearing. If the case seems to have merit the petition is placed on the agenda for a conference. At the conference the Justices discuss the merits of the petition. If four or more justices decide the petition deserves a hearing then a subsequent hearing is scheduled. This is a well-established process. We'll know Friday, but there is no need for the hype and unrealistic expectations that 'Brunson gets rid' of anyone in a couple of days. That's just fantasy.

>>18068325

>there is a clear and present danger to our country. you have failed to read about rule 11.

Agreed about the danger. Rule 11 will (hopefully) get Brunson a hearing, but the hearing will not be on Friday, 1/6.

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.

>>18068362

>but isn't it already scheduled for Friday?

No. A conference is scheduled for Friday. The justices are not at the bench during a conference. The Brunson petition will be discussed and hopefully granted a hearing (at a later date).

>>18068387

>No. He already got the hearing. It's happening.

He got the hearing, but it's scheduled for a conference? No. There is no hearing scheduled. "It's happening" Hmmm. Never heard that here before.

>>18068447

>Fuck these dudes.

No, Klaus, we will not. Nor will we eat the bugs.

>>18068502

>unsure of the pipe lighting top…

>try "St Benedict Lighter".

Anon just needs a pipe insert:

https://www.zippo.com/collections/lighter-inserts/products/pipe-insert-gold-plates

>>18068505

>defendants rights were waived. immediate relief at the conference. lurk moar.

When confronted with a Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the United States Supreme Court, some attorneys will play the odds and let the Court deal with a Petition without even filing a Brief in Opposition. A Respondent may choose to waive the right to oppose a Petition that seems clearly without merit. This will save time and money without any substantial risk if the Respondent feels certain that Certiorari will be denied.

https://www.cocklelegalbriefs.com/blog/preparing-your-brief/should-i-skip-the-brief-in-opposition/

Supreme Court Rules Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs

Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs

1. A brief in opposition to the petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed by the respondent in any case, but is not mandatory except in a capital case,

It wasn't the defendants who waived, it was the US Solicitor General. There are a couple of valid reasons for that. Indulge your fantasy elsewhere.