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
