https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhztDt7-QT8
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 4:26 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > I cant read anything with the word shylock in it, thats an offensive term > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:53 PM Chuck McCown via AF <af@af.afmug.com> > wrote: > >> I would agree, it would have perhaps shut some up, satisfied a few >> others. The outcome would have been the same so why go through the >> motions. >> >> Kinda like forcing a team to run a play rather than take a knee. >> >> Steve I would recommend a reading of the merchant of Venice... Then >> answer whether or not Shylock got justice. >> >> *From:* Adam Moffett >> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:48 PM >> *To:* Chuck McCown via AF >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >> >> >> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a >> day in court might convince some people that justice was done more >> effectively than simply dismissing the case. An independent judiciary >> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that. The cases are being >> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit. If that doesn't >> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing >> it. >> >> >> On 12/14/2020 4:38 PM, Chuck McCown via AF wrote: >> >> Texas cannot say how they are being damaged by Pennsylvania. >> >> If you cannot identify how your neighbor is harming you, you have no >> standing. >> Irrespective of jurisdiction. >> >> *From:* Steve Jones >> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 2:33 PM >> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >> >> merit would be decided in court >> >> " In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of >> complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction." >> >> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf (alitos >> reference dissent) >> >> 155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion >> for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under >> Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially >> cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its >> elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of >> Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have >> discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls >> within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ >> (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the >> motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and >> I express no view on any other issue. >> >> >> This isnt one state saying i dont like the color of your statehouse. Like >> it or not, the consequences will be suffered for not closing it down when >> the opportunity presented. >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:23 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I disagree with that. The case had no merit and they said so. SCOTUS >>> refuses to hear cases all the time, especially if they think the plaintiff >>> has no standing. They said so, and that's it. >>> >>> >>> >>> bp >>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>> >>> On 12/14/2020 1:17 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>> >>> 2 thought that, and 3 have a violent media to contend with... cowardice >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:09 PM Chuck McCown via AF <af@af.afmug.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> To get a case before SCOTUS you have to file a writ of certiorari. >>>> Then if you can get 4 justices to agree to hear the case they “grant >>>> cert”. >>>> I hear it is 5 if it is a dispute between the states. >>>> >>>> They can decide if it is a waste of their time or not. Sounds like all >>>> of them thought this would be a waste of their time and cert was not >>>> granted. >>>> >>>> Two of them thought that the primary jurisdiction issue should have >>>> allowed the states to get heard but even those two thought it was a waste >>>> of time. >>>> >>>> So why hear the case at all if it was going to be a unanimous decision >>>> against Texas? >>>> The other cases joined more to try to make the case that any state v >>>> state case should get automatically heard. I guess that test failed from >>>> their perspective. >>>> >>>> I actually asked from a writ of cert once. Don’t fully recall the >>>> case. Had to do with telephone rates and the circuit court would not grant >>>> us an en banc hearing so we appealed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Bill Prince >>>> *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2020 9:05 AM >>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>> >>>> >>>> That's the way I read it too. The bottom line is that all the states >>>> have sovereignty relative to each other, and no state is above another (or >>>> below). The only time there is an issue is when there is some >>>> boundary-related issue that requires a higher authority (and Texas doesn't >>>> border any of the defendant states). So the "ruling" (not sure if that's >>>> the correct term is that Texas has no standing in this case. AKA pound >>>> sand. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> bp >>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>> >>>> On 12/14/2020 5:23 AM, Adam Moffett wrote: >>>> >>>> There's a school of thought that since their jurisdiction is exclusive, >>>> the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear *any* case a state brings >>>> no matter how flawed it might be. Their feeling is that since there's no >>>> higher power to appeal to, that they *have *to hear the case so that >>>> it gets heard. Thomas and Alito are in that school of thought, and that's >>>> why they expressed the opinion they did. >>>> >>>> My reading of it is that the only disagreement was whether to tell >>>> Texas to go away before or after they're allowed to file their complaints. >>>> Either way, the court unanimously told Texas to pound sand. The only way >>>> this is unclear is if someone willfully interprets it that way. If someone >>>> is inclined it interpret it that way, then they would have been unhappy >>>> with any outcome. There was absolutely zero chance that the Supreme Court >>>> of the US would overturn one state's election at the behest of another. >>>> Especially based on the argument that "their election processes hurt us." >>>> If they did that, then similar suits would happen every 4 years henceforth. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12/12/2020 10:31 PM, Steve Jones wrote: >>>> >>>> We need to have scotus do their damn job and get case law. If they keep >>>> punting for politics it will get stupid. This team when one snaps out you >>>> dont get some cross dresser popping through a crowd to bike lock someone >>>> and scurrying off, you get Oklahoma city. They need to shut the shit down >>>> or pay the cost of the product they purchased. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> bp >>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/12/2020 4:10 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes, thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don’t know what was more bizarre, that music video, or Chuck being >>>>> the one who sent it. Who knew. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com *On Behalf Of *Bill Prince >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM >>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> bp >>>>> >>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown mailto:ch...@go-mtc.com >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>> From: Bill Prince >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> First place I heard it was from Molly Wood on Make Me Smart: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en >>>>> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en> >>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> bp >>>>> >>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I was not familiar with the term banana-pants. A Google search yields >>>>> >>>>> lots of results, mostly photos of banana pants, as well as some songs, >>>>> >>>>> none of which shed much light on the subject for me. I assume it >>>>> >>>>> means cra-cra? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>> From: AF mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com On Behalf Of Robert Andrews >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This was similar to how the south leaders hauled all the regular >>>>> >>>>> people into the civil war. Yes they did a good job stirring things up >>>>> >>>>> before. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/12/2020 11:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The people who should really be looking at this are the citizens in >>>>> >>>>> the states who think it's appropriate for their AG to sue another >>>>> >>>>> state's election results. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The suit was what I would call banana-pants. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> bp >>>>> >>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/11/2020 4:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> >>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> >>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> ------------------------------ >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
