11 Oct 22
@sonhouse saidHow can you opine on this if you know way much less than the studious judges, who all disagree.z?
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/moore-v-harper-explained
This can be the end of democracy in the US.
I wonder how many folks here APPLAUD that case, and hope it wins?
11 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidHahaha you mean the ultra right wing evangelical liars and rapists surely.
How can you opine on this if you know way much less than the studious judges, who all disagree.z?
11 Oct 22
@earl-of-trumps saidyeh, so a law allowing some bad crap to happen (by removing consequences) being removed is, in your opinion, quite alright, because everybody gets the chance to do that bad crap.
If there are no *federal* laws on the books about redistricting, then the states can do what they want.
that's how I see it. but remember sonhouse, what's good here for the repubs is also good for the dems.
Damn you people are dumb. To me it's baffling not just the stupidity of this argument but mostly that you think you can convince someone with it.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
@averagejoe1 saidThis used to be a free country.
How can you opine on this if you know way much less than the studious judges, who all disagree.z?
11 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidThe link in the OP says that most legal experts have debunked North Carolina's claim on the matter.
How can you opine on this if you know way much less than the studious judges, who all disagree.z?
11 Oct 22
1 edit
@kevin-eleven saidLol, how can you opine on anything really unless you're an expert in a position of authority to make decisions?
This used to be a free country.
11 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidJoe, you're saying because judges disagree then we shouldn't be able to voice opinions?
How can you opine on this if you know way much less than the studious judges, who all disagree.z?
11 Oct 22
@wildgrass saidNo;, I am saying that we not go wild as does Sonhouse. He is not exactly a conversationalist. We should get him one of Billy Graham's old preacher tents!!!!
Joe, you're saying because judges disagree then we shouldn't be able to voice opinions?
Case in point, there are reams of 'stuff' that will have to be reviewed, corrected, explained, etc that learned judges will be going over, for months, discussing, certainly we all agree. We further agree that we cannot likely make educated comments when we dont know all those facts and legal reasoning. That will be a lot of posting pretty much going nowhere. There are other fish to fry. Why, we can discuss Trump messing with us!!
11 Oct 22
@averagejoe1 saidThis IS Trump messing with you and your constitution / democracy
No;, I am saying that we not go wild as does Sonhouse. He is not exactly a conversationalist. We should get him one of Billy Graham's old preacher tents!!!!
Case in point, there are reams of 'stuff' that will have to be reviewed, corrected, explained, etc that learned judges will be going over, for months, discussing, certainly we all agree. We further agree that ...[text shortened]... retty much going nowhere. There are other fish to fry. Why, we can discuss Trump messing with us!!
11 Oct 22
@kevcvs57 saidHey, there's that democracy word again. Can maybe YOU be the one to define it for us? I think it has two definitions , that is the problem. You may differ from Sonhouse, dont turn over the apple cart.
This IS Trump messing with you and your constitution / democracy