Whether Rule 10B of the Rules of Tennessee Supreme Court constitutes a structural constitutional violation under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as interpreted in Williams v. Pennsylvania

1. According to Williams v. Pennsylvania, 579 U.S. 1 (2016) (“ Williams ”), is Rule 10B of the Rules of Tennessee Supreme Court (“Rule 10B”) a structural constitutional violation,1 guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Clause (“Fourteenth Amendment”), because Rule 10B, imposes conditions that shift, from the State of Tennessee to litigants, the burden of providing petitioner access to a judge with a state of mind equal to the minimum Williams requires for any judge to be constitutionally qualified to adjudicate petitioner’s case? 2. Is an inalienable characteristic of a structural constitutional right that it is impossible for a litigant (as is petitioner) to waive and for the State of Tennessee to forfeit? 3. Per petitioner (a litigant), for a judge to be constitutionally qualified to adjudicate a litigant’s case, must the judge not appear to have a state of mind (“psychologically wedded”) described in Williams ? 4. Per Williams , is the right of a litigant to a constitutionally qualified judge a structural 1. Structural constitutional rights. Greer v. United States , 593 U.S. 503 (2021); Weaver v. Massachusetts, 582 U.S. 286 (2017); McCoy v. Louisiana , 584 U.S. 414 (2018); Glebe v. Frost , 574 U.S. 21 (2014); United States v. Davila , 569 U.S. 597 (2013); United States v. Marcus , 560 U.S. 258 (2010); United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez , 548 U.S. 140 (2006); Washington v. Recuenco , 548 U.S. 212 (2006). ii constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment? 5. For petitioner (a litigant) to be assured access to the structural constitutional right to a constitutionally qualified judge, does Rule 10B mandate that petitioner (a litigant) qualify by complying with prerequisite conditions prescribed by Rule 10B but not allowed by Williams ? 6. Other than being a litigant, is the structural constitutional right to have the litigant’s case be adjudicated only by a constitutionally qualified judge an unconditional right? 7. Is the State of Tennessee structurally obligated, by the Fourteenth Amendment, to provide all litigants in Tennessee with a constitutionally qualified judge without any litigant obligation to file a motion to recuse? 8. Is the State of Tennessee structurally obligated, by the Fourteenth Amendment, to provide all litigants in Tennessee with a court with subject matter jurisdiction constitutionally the same as the State of Tennessee’s structural obligation to provide all litigants in Tennessee a judge constitutionally qualified according to Williams ?