>>9730035 (pb)

>before this En Banc concept takes hold I am gonna shoot it down.

>Although a lawyer can write a motion about anything and argue literally any point of view.

>It is the most unlikely scenario to expect played out for delay purposes.

>The same Judges that said Sullivan was out of bounds would make the decision to allow it to go to full court. They cited irreparable harm as their reasoning. They are not going to say " Just kidding , let's go en banc for more harm "

>none of the perimeters for en banc request exist.

>If we want to stretch our imagination of what Sullivan could do to delay, I only see recusal as a possibility

No. See image.

https://twitter.com/File411/status/1275814833972264960

>>9730203

>Your full of shit shill, to come in here and use another CHAT board to try to prove a false narrative?

>Fuck off.

Chat? It's fucking lawyers on Twitter, you cuntwaffle.

Go ahead and stick your head in the sand. You can come back later and say, "Wait! What? They can't DO that!"

>>9730236

>On twitter, and your calling me a cuntwaffle?

Highest IQ anon right there, anons. Nothing on Twitter.

Conservative law professor on our side.

https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1275797809921429504

>>9730488

>this is in correct.

I'm going to tend to believe a 25-year law clerk for 7th Circuit over anon. Sorry

>>9730536

He will be killed or die in some way so they get the sympathy vote.

They are starting the drumbeats.

>>9730734

Need more? Go read up. The drums are pounding loudly now.

LAWFARE. It's warfare using law.

https://twitter.com/search?q=en%20banc&src=typed_query