Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4749990" data-attributes="member: 63706">I&#039;ve said it before, if democrats were denied their day in court, I would feel the same way. I agree that I am speculating on the judges&#039; motivations. That&#039;s all any of us can do. And yes, when you are denied access to other avenues of remedy, or access to evidence through other channels, you can turn to the courts to order that access. Both sides have access to the court of public opinion. The left wing media, along with their coworkers in the the Democratic party brough all.of their resources to bear over 4 years deluding a significant portion of the population into believing all sorts of nonsense about Trump. That&#039;s why so many are willing to accept any incorrect reason for the lawsuits being dismissed.As for the Supreme Court case, I realize that lack of standing was given for the reason they chose not to hear the case. But it wasn&#039;t dismissed for lack of standing. It&#039;s a fine distinction that I don&#039;t have the time to explain, but basically, there was no actual ruling in the case. The statement was a non-precedent setting write up explaining why they weren&#039;t hearing the case. Thomas and Alito disagreed with the assessment, and affirmed that the Supreme Court can&#039;t deny the filing of a bill of complaint that falls under its original jurisdiction. Etc. Etc. Etc. Blah, blah, blah... I know I&#039;m wasting my time, but there you have it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4749990, member: 63706"] I've said it before, if democrats were denied their day in court, I would feel the same way. I agree that I am speculating on the judges' motivations. That's all any of us can do. And yes, when you are denied access to other avenues of remedy, or access to evidence through other channels, you can turn to the courts to order that access. Both sides have access to the court of public opinion. The left wing media, along with their coworkers in the the Democratic party brough all.of their resources to bear over 4 years deluding a significant portion of the population into believing all sorts of nonsense about Trump. That's why so many are willing to accept any incorrect reason for the lawsuits being dismissed. As for the Supreme Court case, I realize that lack of standing was given for the reason they chose not to hear the case. But it wasn't dismissed for lack of standing. It's a fine distinction that I don't have the time to explain, but basically, there was no actual ruling in the case. The statement was a non-precedent setting write up explaining why they weren't hearing the case. Thomas and Alito disagreed with the assessment, and affirmed that the Supreme Court can't deny the filing of a bill of complaint that falls under its original jurisdiction. Etc. Etc. Etc. Blah, blah, blah... I know I'm wasting my time, but there you have it. [/QUOTE]

Verification