[Kevmo]

Posts #3, 10, 17, 29, 39, 59, 77, 95 on this thread alone have used the argument that the Supreme Court must be corrupt for denying to hear this case.
***BZZZT, wrong. We are directly in lineage back to post #3 which says they’re gunshy, not corrupt. Take your argument where it exists, not where you want it to exist.

[drjimmy]

BZZZT, wrong. We are directly in lineage back to post #3 which says they’re gunshy, not corrupt. Take your argument where it exists, not where you want it to exist.

Gee, Kezmo, why did you not quote the entirety of post #3? The part that claims "This is simply a P.R. move" by the Supreme Court. If you don't think that arguing that the Supreme Court bases its decisions on P.R. is the same as arguing that it is corrupt, you have no place questioning anyone else's understanding of logic. You've also ignored the point made that earlier threads have had comments claiming that the Supreme Court is corrupt on this topic. So your denial of "lineage" regarding the original post is simply wrong. But thanks for playing.