One case is actually still in court.
In one case in Pennsylvania they were granted a court order saying they
had to allow observers closer than 6 feet, but they lost that that one
on appeal.
Roughly 50 other cases were dismissed. Some were due to lack of
standing, some because the court felt it couldn't provide the relief
being asked for, some for being moot, some because the evidence was
insufficient.
In the famous "Release the Kraken" case, the judge responded that you
have affidavits from people swearing that they believe something could
have happened, not saying they actually saw something. Belief that
something could have happened is not evidence that it did. Like I
believe Ken Hohhof is old enough to be the second gunman on the grassy
knoll. I could swear to that in an affidavit, but that's not evidence
that he shot JFK.
On 12/14/2020 2:52 PM, Chuck Macenski wrote:
Didn't they go to court in the states and lose?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:45 PM Steve Jones
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
" I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm wrong)
is that they won't feel like they really lost unless they get to
make their arguments in a courtroom and THEN lose. I'm saying
they'll feel like they didn't really lose no matter what,"
Yes. but its separating the Tim McVeighs from the Housewife Bettys.
So you have something like 80 percent of the trump voters thinking
he was robbed (oddly enough a CNN poll showed 10 percent of
democrat voters agreeing). Of that 80 percent, there probably 25
percent youre not going to get to ever listen to anything,
theyre the ones who know alex jones is garbage but still listen to
him, they also believe theres a pizza joint selling child sex
slaves to rich people, theyre as bad as the cult of left 25
percent that still believe the russian collusion delusion. The
remaining 55 percent will accept an actual case result from
supreme court, as much as most of us dont care for unelected
officials making decisions, the constitution matters. the biggest
problem is that as we speak, the ilk of alex jones are onboarding
them left and right. It doesnt help what West, who by most
measures is respected (aside from bigot libs who call him Tom, but
thats a whole other bucket of hypocrisy) is talking openly about
constitutional secession, not new speak, but given the climate, a
very bloody prospect. He would tone down with a legitimate,
constitutional ruling. Without it, the scotus is literally saying
there is no recourse against a percieved wrong in the united
states, at which point, the 2A becomes active.
Like it or not, this is what it is.
Like I said, the ilk of mcveigh, weather underground, black
liberation army, ted Kaczynski, theyre all going to do what they
do, regardless
I dont personally care either way, Ill survive the two years biden
is a half threat, Im not opposed to reeducation being not illegal
for a period either. I just cant tolerate coawardice at the
supreme court (the 3 last placements), and I dont like living in
grey areas and I dont like the likes of alex jones being given
credibility to my mother.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:15 PM Adam Moffett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This case was dismissed for lack of standing. Other cases
were dismissed for a variety of reasons including the evidence
being specious or deficient. That's losing. All of that is
losing. If it was Steve Jones vs McCown Tech and it was
dismissed then you'd say you lost. There'd be no doubt in
your mind.
I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm wrong)
is that they won't feel like they really lost unless they get
to make their arguments in a courtroom and THEN lose. I'm
saying they'll feel like they didn't really lose no matter
what, and a courtroom just gives them another pulpit to preach
from. If the evidence sucks, the arguments are illogical,
and/or they're asking for relief that the court can't give
them, then dismissing is the right move.
On 12/14/2020 12:34 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
Thats the issue, they havent "lost in court" they never went
to court. The court responsible for hearing it. No one is
saying hear every case, but cases of national importance and
with immense national consequence need not ever be punted.
The vast majority of pro 2A people understand the 2a
isnt there for hunting game adn the lack of action on scotus
part will result in action elsewhere. There will be blood
over this, and its not necessary. Once scotus actually ruled
after hearing the case, most would move on. The tim mcveighs
out there are building their bombs regardless. But Jane Q
would probably go back to canning beets. Instead right now
shes listening to alex jones (why does covid take charlie
pride, but not alex jones, somebody explain this)
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:18 AM Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If they heard every argument and /then/ dismissed it,
isn't that just a different kind of political messaging?
Expedience mattered in this case because the EC vote was
imminent.
I realize there are nutters who will rationalize the
outcome as "we were right, but the court didn't want to
hear it because of a technicality." But if they went all
the way through with it the same people would come up
with some other reasoning why they actually were right.
There are still people who insist Nixon was framed, and
people still think Iraq had functional WMD's.
Forevermore there will be people who believe Donald Trump
actually won the 2020 election, and nothing the court
says will ever change their minds. Losing in court >50
times didn't matter to them, why would one more?
I'm ready for "justsumname" to pipe and prove me right.
On 12/14/2020 11:55 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
That's exactly why the supreme court needed to do their
job and hear it. Then smack it down, I don't like the
supreme court making decisions out of political
expedience as they did here (hint the last 3). Hell,
these arent even states actually at each other, its
elected state officials. Scotus needed to put case law
with a ruling (this wasnt a ruling) in the books.
There will be violence that could have been avoided.
Outcome of the "case" would have been the same either way.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:24 AM Adam Moffett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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] <mailto:[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 <[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> *On Behalf Of
*Bill Prince
*Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[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<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chuck McCown via AF
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: Chuck McCown<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY
<https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY>
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Prince
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[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>
<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<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of Robert Andrews
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
To:[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>
--
AF mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
<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
