Anonymous ID: e0bb40 Sept. 25, 2024, 8:16 a.m. No.21654841   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

Naomi Wolf, being interviewed by Peter Navaro, just explained why Jewish Americans fear Trump. What I heard is Jews are stupid/gullible people who are terrified of Christians. Also, Judeo-Christian is by definition 'blasphemy' towards Christ. Absolutely stupidest interview I've ever heard from Naomi, just dumb.

Anonymous ID: e0bb40 Sept. 25, 2024, 9:38 a.m. No.21655198   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>21655026

I will concede, that case against congress isn't the one that's been denied, it was Brunson v. Sotomayor et al,

 

Plaintiff: Raland J. Brunson

Defendant: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson

Case Number: 1:2023cv00042

Filed: April 12, 2023

Court: US District Court for the District of Utah

Presiding Judge: Jared C Bennett

Referring Judge: Howard C Nielson

Nature of Suit: Contract: Other

 

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/utah/utdce/1:2023cv00042/139026

 

I know a few weeks ago this Brunson thing nearly turned into a slide but these are technically two different cases and the one on the Supreme Court docket we were looking at was the one above (I could be wrong).

Anonymous ID: e0bb40 Sept. 25, 2024, 9:51 a.m. No.21655271   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5281

>>21655129

I thought the same, but apparently Brunsen has several cases at once. We did a dig on this last week and it's f'ing weird this didn't make itself apparent then. I just searched his full name w/middle initial and got different results. I'm still looking at it so I can't say it's anything other than irritating when the internet hides shit.

Anonymous ID: e0bb40 Sept. 25, 2024, 10:36 a.m. No.21655513   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>5545

Well, here's our problem, an excerpt from the originally filed Brunson case in the lower court;

 

Even if Mr. Brunson has established standing, he cannot show that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity as to any of his causes of action.

 

โ€œThe United States and its officers enjoy immunity from suit except in instances where the United States has expressly waived that protection.โ€ โ€œThe policy behind this rule is that the government should not be hampered in its performance of activities essential to the governing of the nation, unless it has given its consent.โ€ โ€œThus, if the government has not consented to suit, the courts have no jurisdiction to either restrain the government from acting, or to compel it to act.โ€ Simply put, โ€œthe existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.โ€

 

I get the above is technically correct but just reading the bad guy has to agree to be put on trial just blows my mind.