Hi @BevelGear - Could you clarify a bit what kind of discussion you’re after by posting this? Also, most folks on Beehaw are probably not lawyers so posting a supreme court ruling without any commentary or clarification probably isn’t the most conducive to good discussion.
It was an interesting document to skim through and wanted to share it for the curious. That is all.
I understand you would like discussion and I apologize for disappointing you.
Sorry if it seems like you’re being scolded - that’s not my intention. I think it’s fine to post something like this, but maybe I’m the future a brief explanation of why you found it worth posting would be helpful to get the discussion started - either in the post body or a comment.
This is, at best, 17 months old. (That October 2023 overline makes things unclear.)
It’s fine to point out older sources; dumping them without context isn’t particularly useful. As a community, we’re here to have conversations, which this post does not engender. It’s not a matter of the topic, just that it’s old and has no bearing on current events.
Duly noted. I won’t so it again.
What about this old case that probably won’t result in anything because the SC has no integrity?
