I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide
berth of discretion, they are the literal last line prior to
violent engagement. So, say the feds want to add a tea tax on
Massachusetts. Massachusetts says hey, I'm harmed by this. Without
a hearing the court says, nope, no merit. Massachusetts says, hey
now, we really think you should hear us out.
Discretion being the key.
We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40
million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds .
Whether what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it
is, and their communications have been forced out of the public's
surveillance, so you never know what they're going to do next.
They're not the kind who wear black clothes, masks, and disappear
right after they do something cowardly like beat an old man in a
wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be
latino wasnt kidding.
Either way
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson
<cpeter...@portnetworks.com <mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com>>
wrote:
I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what
case/issue the SC should hear out. The "case" argued in
public is nothing like anything presented in any court. It
isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't given an opportunity. Q.
Are you alleging fraud? A. No. Well OK then. You can't
then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud. When the PA
supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and
do the same. They will rightly tell you to pound sand. This
basic script played out over and over again.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
