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
