C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

I flagged my first post. Thank you Texags for giving me that opportunity.

---

whose banned sock account are you, BTW.

1 day old account 50 posts.

carefully doling out compliments to both sides.

I know that question is verboten here these days, but at least be honest with us all.

---

I'm a long time listener and first time caller.

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

I flagged my first post. Thank you Texags for giving me that opportunity.

---

whose banned sock account are you, BTW.

1 day old account 50 posts.

carefully doling out compliments to both sides.

I know that question is verboten here these days, but at least be honest with us all.

---

You also come across as controlling.

I'd believe it.

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

I flagged my first post. Thank you Texags for giving me that opportunity.

---

whose banned sock account are you, BTW.

1 day old account 50 posts.

carefully doling out compliments to both sides.

I know that question is verboten here these days, but at least be honest with us all.

---

I'm a long time listener and first time caller.

---

---

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

You also come across as controlling.

---

No. I am an *******, not controlling.
You, however, are most definitely a sock account.
but I will cease engaging with you as I do not think you are posting with an intent to engage fairly.

good luck to you "new account".

---

Go for it. Now leave me alone and go about your business.

paperback said:

---

I believe the political landscape today dictates so very much of our lives. If the SC saw no standing, it's probably because they saw nothing that would benefit them from ruling on such a controversial topic. They go home and have lives outside of the SC like everyone else.

---

Or, maybe it's simply that believe the State of Texas had no standing to bring the case. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best.

_mpaul said:

---

paperback said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

But the court didn't see there was a challenge they could stand on. So explain how they are not doing their job if they saw no standing

Why are you not serving on a Federal Bench since you know more than all three Trump appointees?

---

I believe the political landscape today dictates so very much of our lives. If the SC saw no standing, it's probably because they saw nothing that would benefit them from ruling on such a controversial topic. They go home and have lives outside of the SC like everyone else.

ETA: What I meant to say bottom line is that I think you can rule on practically anything if you are a judge in ANY court, especially if you don't follow the rule of the law to the letter. Which is WRONG.

---

Or, maybe it's simply that believe the State of Texas had no standing to bring the case. Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best.

---

Very possible. I'm no legal expert by far. But I suspect there are other things going on, especially in today's political climate.

VitruvianAg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

---

What, they can't yell at each other on a zoom call?

I know a guy that whipped out his member to whip it up on a zoom call, and he's still getting paid by CNN!

---

so are they zooming from their offices in the building?

or are staffers working in their homes with them?

---

You think those old farts knows how to use Zoom?

They don't have their helper bees holding their hands on the mouse? .......Your Honor, you put the mouse right here and you click left mouse button when you want to change it to multi screen....... and then right click when you ....................

Com'on now, they're not sitting around alone at their homes by themselves..........

Even if it wasn't exactly as this guy said it, I could see something within that realm of possibilities being likely.

---

This scenario (9 justices debating Texas v Penn on a zoom call) has potential to be an epic comedy sketch if done correctly, but it would not been done correctly unfortunately and therefore it will exist only in my mind.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

even if you are a pro-Trumper, if you still believe any of the **** that Lin Wood is pedaling, you are a ****ing idiot.

---

Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?

---

irrelevant. actions since November reflect current status quo.

shyster. pure and simple.

---

Really? Not going to get specific here but If someone had a several decade long record that was outstanding and for 2 months fight for a crazy cause, the decades before are irrelevant to evaluating the person?

---

I agree with you. Past actions are relevant to credibility. When Wood first filed suit in GA, I gave him benefit of the doubt based on his past. (That case likely does have merit, but should have been brought by a candidate in state court)

But then he started going off the deep end. Kemp, McConnell etc all bought off by China, "kraken" is a military operation in which Powell is going to try the deep state in military tribunals, don't vote for Republicans in GA, etc etc. his credibility took a huge hit. When he keeps claiming things & producing nothing to back it up, his claim about a secret phone call is suspect. The linked video has already been shown to be false

It's begs the question, how many random people on twitter saying "this is the day!! Today is the day Trump takes out the deep state" and being wrong time and time again are you going to believe before their credibility becomes an issue?

C@LAg said:

---

paperback said:

---

This is wrong think. This is a forum, and people are able to discuss their ideas as much as you without being told they are know it alls. You should take that statement back.

---

you should learn to not engage with her.
that is her schtick.

---

That never stopped you!

But I would like to see Ellis explain why he knows more about this than Trump's 3 appointees which are gonna end Roe v Wade and maybe Gay marriage, yet he is not in the courtroom

BluHorseShu said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

even if you are a pro-Trumper, if you still believe any of the **** that Lin Wood is pedaling, you are a ****ing idiot.

---

Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?

---

irrelevant. actions since November reflect current status quo.

shyster. pure and simple.

---

Really? Not going to get specific here but If someone had a several decade long record that was outstanding and for 2 months fight for a crazy cause, the decades before are irrelevant to evaluating the person?

---

If say someone, like a President, had a decades long record of misogyny, infidelity and just basic moral ambiguity, we should just forget all of that because he sidled up to the Christian Right? So should ones history be used to judge ones current character? Sounds like you're saying yes.

---

I'm assuming you're not referencing Trump.

He hired a woman to build one of his first large buildings (may have been Trump Tower, don't care to look up the specifics) at a time when women weren't much more than a "go get me a cup of coffee, honey" or "please take this dictation".

I started my professional life in that era.

---

So you used to take dictation?

---

I'm an Architect, I was relegated to other menial tasks for the first few months until I proved myself!

As it should be!

You guys will believe anything as long as it fits your preferred narrative. That's a problem.

Gbr1971 said:

---

You guys will believe anything as long as it fits your preferred narrative. That's a problem.

---

Russi, Russia, Russia.

Indeed, two play the game!

Gbr1971 said:

---

You guys will believe anything as long as it fits your preferred narrative. That's a problem.

---

Kind of like how Michael Brown had his hands up

Or how I could keep my doctor

Or how masks will keep the virus from spreading

Or how Bingazi was caused by a YouTube video

Or how CO2 is a pollutant

Or how Trump collided with the Russians

Etc. Etc.

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

Gbr1971 said:

---

You guys will believe anything as long as it fits your preferred narrative. That's a problem.

---

Kind of like how Michael Brown had his hands up

Or how I could keep my doctor

Or how masks will keep the virus from spreading

Or how Bingazi was caused by a YouTube video

Or how CO2 is a pollutant

Or how Trump collided with the Russians

Etc. Etc.

---

yes that's exactly right. The hardened team political fans on both sides believe anything as long as it fits their preferred narrative.

eric76 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Oh, Tanya. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito (IIRC) wanted to hear the case. They can't help it if other justices are cowards.

---

So if it was heard and Alito stood by his dissent that there was no other relief, would he not be doing his job?

Since you know more about this than the court and all

---

Who mediates disputes between the states, Tanya? If Texas doesn't have standing to challenge the unconstitutionality of some states' elections, who does?

---

No state has any business interfering in the way any other state runs its election.

---

So, I'll build election machines for every Republican state that has 10 lines worth of compiled code, is dirt cheap and reports only the results of:


vote = getVote();
if(vote) ++repVote;

You say you are an old C++ programmer. Will this work for you? After all what one state does is no business of another

Capt. Augustus McCrae said:

---

Gbr1971 said:

---

You guys will believe anything as long as it fits your preferred narrative. That's a problem.

---

Kind of like how Michael Brown had his hands up

Or how I could keep my doctor

Or how masks will keep the virus from spreading

Or how Bingazi was caused by a YouTube video

Or how CO2 is a pollutant

Or how Trump collided with the Russians

Etc. Etc.

---

Exactly like that. Those people are exactly the same.

Looks like this was all posted to 4chan immediately after it occurred. What an absolute joke. **** Roberts.

Guffia said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Looks like this was all posted to 4chan immediately after it occurred. What an absolute joke. **** Roberts.

---

Or some autist on 4chan wrote this up from his imagination and that is the whole source of this.

---

Possibly, but given how eerily accurate /pol/ is with random posts like these, I suspect it's probably true. There are a lot of government people, especially those Gen X and down who read and post on /pol/.

Lmao

Nothing. To. See. Here.

100% Everything was 100% above board

/libs

So the justices met in a closed secluded room? In person? Anyone see the problem with that?

Gbr1971 said:

---

So the justices met in a closed secluded room? In person? Anyone see the problem with that?

---

Not as long as the newest justice is there to answer the door.

Gbr1971 said:

---

So the justices met in a closed secluded room? In person? Anyone see the problem with that?

---

Why do you believe they actually met during this time, considering the age of some of the members?

Tanya 93 said:

---

Gbr1971 said:

---

So the justices met in a closed secluded room? In person? Anyone see the problem with that?

---

Why do you believe they actually met during this time, considering the age of some of the members?

---

Sorry. Didn't realize others had pointed out this story is impossible due to the fact the justices haven't been meeting in person for 8 months.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

even if you are a pro-Trumper, if you still believe any of the **** that Lin Wood is pedaling, you are a ****ing idiot.

---

Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?

---

irrelevant. actions since November reflect current status quo.

shyster. pure and simple.

---

Really? Not going to get specific here but If someone had a several decade long record that was outstanding and for 2 months fight for a crazy cause, the decades before are irrelevant to evaluating the person?

---

I agree with you. Past actions are relevant to credibility. When Wood first filed suit in GA, I gave him benefit of the doubt based on his past. (That case likely does have merit, but should have been brought by a candidate in state court)

But then he started going off the deep end. Kemp, McConnell etc all bought off by China, "kraken" is a military operation in which Powell is going to try the deep state in military tribunals, don't vote for Republicans in GA, etc etc. his credibility took a huge hit. When he keeps claiming things & producing nothing to back it up, his claim about a secret phone call is suspect. The linked video has already been shown to be false

It's begs the question, how many random people on twitter saying "this is the day!! Today is the day Trump takes out the deep state" and being wrong time and time again are you going to believe before their credibility becomes an issue?

---

How much weight should we give past actions (good or bad) to current credibility vs current actions? I think in the current political climate both sides are more inclined to overlook credibility if it supports their own narrative

Gyles Marrett said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

even if you are a pro-Trumper, if you still believe any of the **** that Lin Wood is pedaling, you are a ****ing idiot.

---

Was Lin Wood considered a loon before November 2020?

---

yes

Should be brought up for impeachment.

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

Should be brought up for impeachment.

---

Based on what?


And I never agreed with impeaching Trump before the whataboutism