“More or less irrelevant?” No.
What she’s saying there is that the majority erred by even taking up the case on original jurisdiction. It is the majority’s reasoning allowing that action that she inveighs against.
That’s not irrelevant, but neither is it the merits of the underlying action.
She’s not blowing smoke. But neither is she talking about the merits of the underlying action.
Indeed? Well, I’m perfectly happy that the law is settled, and settled on the precise grounds that I said it would be.
In line with my previous statement about changing the rules in the middle of the game… as I look back on that previous thread, I sure don’t find any place where you suggested that there was any room for mistake – even a 4-3 partisan victory for the other side – in your position.
In fact, you said:
That doesn’t seem to contemplate the notion that the judge’s order would be vacated, declared void back to the moment it was issued, does it?
Can you point to any analysis or prediction you made in that thread that turned out to be correct? Any at all?
But still, here, instead of simply admitting error, you continue to somehow insist I’ve rigged the game, “reframed” the debate so that it’s in my area of expertise.
Newsflash: the entire debate was about the law.
I didn’t reframe anything. I found it this way.
“Reality based community?”
Hah! Hah!