So his defense is that he’s a moron? Okay, I’ll buy that.
Why not? It’s how you’ve gotten by for so long.
How are your counseling sessions coming along? Any breakthroughs yet?
I’ll answer any question you like just as soon as you answer this one: Would you ever murder another human being? A simple yes or no will do.
Tick. 
So sorry. You’re a self-confessed troll who is too fucking stupid or senile to remember he confessed to trolling and then was suspended for it.
Pathetic.
Sure – the trial court that inexplicably granted the injunction ordering the mayor NOT to use public funds to pay for same-sex spousal benefits deserves a censorious glare, at least. And it’s certainly true that sometimes a case’s procedural posture creates statements that may seem odd, especially taken out of context.
And that’s what happened here, with the added problem that the reporter tasked with understanding and explaining the issue utterly failed to do so.
Maybe a good example would be a concept called “summary judgement,” and how it creates similarly lopsided appellate language sometimes.
A trial is about applying the law to the facts of a particular case. Often, both sides have very different versions of “the facts,” and the function of a trial is for a jury (or a judge) to hear witnesses, weigh credibility, and determine which events actually happened – which set of “facts” were accurate.
Before trial one side may say, in effect, “Look, I disagree with your version of the facts. But even if I didn’t, even if I agreed that everything happened the way you said it did, you still won’t win. Because even the set of facts that you say happened, the version most favorable to you, even those facts still don’t amount to a loss at trail for me.” In that circumstance, the party can ask the judge to skip the trial. “Why have a trial? Even if you believe every word he says, judge, I still win.”
And when the judge grants that request, it’s known as summary judgement.
But of course the losing party can still appeal this finding. On appeal, the appellate court must take as true every single fact that the losing party has alleged. This sometimes creates confusion in reporting, especially if the appellate court sides with the losing party and agrees that summary judgement was inappropriate. The appellate court seems to be siding totally with one side, taking every one of their allegations as true.
But they’re only doing that because they are reviewing a summary judgement. If they remand back for trial, and later review a post-trial verdict, they’ll accept the facts the trial court found after trial, not just the facts from one side. But when, procedurally, the case is before them on summary judgement, they HAVE TO credit only the losing side’s facts.
Something slightly similar happened here. The case that went to the Texas Supremes was not the result of a trial. It was an appeal of an injunction. The only question before the appeals court had to do with whether the stay was granted correctly: did the trial court correctly apply the law to forbid same-sex benefits?
And they said no: they ordered the lower court to apply the correct law. And since the correct law they told them to apply was the US Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage, their decision was not at all anti-same-sex marriage. But it was also procedurally appropriate.
I didn’t confess to trolling. Nice try.
I gave someone enough rope to hang himself from the stupid tree, then called him on it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. But because the libs on this board think that I am Satan incarnate, they whined and I got an unjustified suspension.
Such is life.
You trolled someone, then bragged about how hard you trolled him, and now you whine about being suspended for trolling. Party of Personal Responsibility, was it?
You were suspended for admitting to trolling. Fucking whiney snowflake, crying “no faaaairrr, unjustified”. Grow up. Take responsibility for your actions.
And, since this is the only thing you understand, and something you write with frequency:
Fuck off.
You deliberately gave a false answer, and then when I challenged you on it, you said you deliberately gave me a false answer because you thought it would piss me off, and I laughed uproariously.
And then you were suspended because that’s pretty much exactly the definition of trolling. Even the conservative mods (and conservative posters in that thread) agreed.
Everyone agreed that you trolled in that thread. Everyone, apparently, but the troll.
The only way that thread could have gone better for me would be if you had called me an ethnic slur.
I know you can’t see my posts, so I’ll encourage others to quote me if they’re so inclined.
Snowflake.
Second-personal, it turns out.
Ha ha! You’re adorable when you think you’re being clever by mimicking me! It’s good that you imitate your betters, even mockingly, because it is still an improvement on the real you.
So, what’s the difficulty in answering my question? Do you have a criminal record for violence that makes you reticent? Maybe a PFA against you or charges of child abuse? Really, E, your complete inability to answer a simple question is positively Clothahumpian. I know! Lets do this! If you respond to me again without giving a straightforward answer to my question, I’ll just take it as your honesty conflicting with your shame over your grubby personal history. You don’t want to lie and say “no” but you’ve thought and done such detestable things…
Why, even his username is an disturbin’ legend, a fib! Doesn’t compare well with the refreshing honesty and candor of yours.
Now he’s going to start stalking you too. Well, you did ask for it, sorta.
He can take a number, get in line.
Just to satisfy a fellow Doper’s curiosity, why couldn’t you have just said so from the start, instead of dodging the question before begrudgingly answering with an oracular statement that could be interpreted (and, tbh, looked as though it were meant to be interpreted) as: “I have no opinion on the matter”?
Speak for yourself. He’s my [del]hero[/del] role model.
And the overstrike coding is enough of a pain in the ass to get right that you KNOW I had a chore choosing between the terms.
Consider it done.
Unless I’ve made the bubble, too.