That play is where the term originates. Main character. Jewish money lender. His name is Shylock. Very good story,
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2020, at 3:26 PM, Steve Jones <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>> 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected] On Behalf Of Bill Prince >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 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:[email protected] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown >>>>>>>>>> via AF >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown mailto:[email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 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: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 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> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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:[email protected] On Behalf Of Robert Andrews >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM >>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>>> -- >>>>>> AF mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
