No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can. Getting to conference to get denied is no trick. The original justice denied it. It got resubmitted to another justice. That justice takes it conference where they can all deny it once and for all.
Being sent to conference doesn't mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It's just the procedure.
No. Because they are denying them as fast as they can.
***Not true, answer has already been posted to you and yet the dog returns to its vomit. Like I said, Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”. Or will you be stacking up your credentials against Billybob’s?
Being sent to conference doesn’t mean anything about merits or the chances of success. It’s just the procedure.
***I note that you simply overlook the argument that there are 17 cases in the pipeline. That means this is not a basic conspiracy issue, it’s a legitimate constitutional issue. No other conspiracy issue has ever gotten that much into court, especially in so short a time. That’s a sign of legitimacy. But you conveniently overlook that. Is that more reflective of the approach of the average troll or the honorable FReeper? Note also that your argument is completely invalid because Berg hasn’t been denied yet. Only his injunction was denied, not his case.
So... what is it going to take to get you to acknowledge that this is a valid constitutional issue, if not 17 cases, 6 concurrent SCOTUS cases, 5 forwards and the resident constitutional scholar from FR saying that it’s a “good analysis”? And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys? Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS? If your intentions are honorable you will honorably answer my questions; if your intentions are not honorable, then we all can see why you have been called, out of frustration, an issue-specific troll.