|
Post by cts1 on Apr 29, 2024 3:39:12 GMT
Bullshit, Jack. It is not the "functional equivalent of a criminal penalty," because there is no state actor involved. This "functional equivalent" exists only in your own rich inner life. I thought the ballot case was a bad idea. You can't claim otherwise, no matter how much your "special invisible friends" want you to believe in the opposite. Your Gish Gallop response is an obvious attempt to group in the strong and the weak cases. Now, stay on point, Jack. Can you do that? How on Earth would the 8th Amendment apply when no government entity is a party? That is the question I asked, and the one you want to try so very hard to avoid. Come up with any grounding in the law for this- go on, I am waiting. Even if the argument is baseless, SCOTUS has accepted baseless arguments before, and issued baseless rulings. If a judge says that denying an allegation is defamation worth $90 million, I believe a fair-minded SCOTUS will find some way to strike it down using whatever pretzel logic they need to. So, no, you have zero reason for that theory...
|
|
|
Post by jackspicer on Apr 29, 2024 5:26:53 GMT
Even if the argument is baseless, SCOTUS has accepted baseless arguments before, and issued baseless rulings. If a judge says that denying an allegation is defamation worth $90 million, I believe a fair-minded SCOTUS will find some way to strike it down using whatever pretzel logic they need to. So, no, you have zero reason for that theory... Due to the extreme unfairness of the ruling and the biased conduct of the judge, I'm confident a higher Court will find a way strike it down. Denying an allegation isn't defamation of character, and $90 million is completely out of whack. You're batting average on the various Trump trials is pretty low, so maybe you should take my word for it. What were your predictions on immunity? Did you get that one wrong too?
|
|
|
Post by cts1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:16:33 GMT
So, no, you have zero reason for that theory... Due to the extreme unfairness of the ruling and the biased conduct of the judge, I'm confident a higher Court will find a way strike it down. Denying an allegation isn't defamation of character, and $90 million is completely out of whack. You're batting average on the various Trump trials is pretty low, so maybe you should take my word for it. What were your predictions on immunity? Did you get that one wrong too? Put up or shut up: considering I correctly predicted the ballot result, what is your evidence of my “low batting average,” Bucky? If misconduct happened, that would be grounds for reversal. So, why all the bullshit where you claim the Eighth Amendment applies? You will, of course, provide evidence that there was misconduct other than “waaaah! They were mean to God-Emperor!” Can you do that, or will you try more bullshit diversions, Bucky?
|
|