As they say, anyone can sue for anything. That's not quite true in this case, but still. What's happening is that these cases are getting denied all the way up the chain. They are just following the procedure. Nothing about that instills any confidence.
"And why is the threshod so high on this issue? Did you log onto the chemtrail threads and berate those guys?"
Chemtrails? I don't think so. But I have on lots of other subjects, yes. But why should I have to justify my participation on these threads? Why is it any more necessary than you justifying yours? This is silly.
"Did any of them ever have cases before the SCOTUS?"
This one doesn't either. These cases have been submitted. So far they've done nothing but get denied.
They are just following the procedure. Nothing about that instills any confidence.
***The resident constitutional scholar seems to have more confidence than you and has characterized what I wrote as “good analysis”. Who should we believe, him or you? We don’t see him berating conservatives who are fighting for the constitution. But we see you doing that. You’re at the point where you’re justifying your troll behavior and it does not measure up to what honorable freepers do.
Kevmo: “So... what is it going to take
mlo: As they say, anyone can sue for anything.
***That does not address the question. That’s what trolls do.
Chemtrails? I don’t think so.
***So you managed to ignore chemtrails, which was typical conspiracy theory with little evidence, but you log onto this constitutionalist issue and go against the resident constitutional expert and berate us conservatives who are still in the fight. You’re a hypocrite.
kevmo: “And why is the threshod so high on this issue?
mlo: But I have on lots of other subjects, yes.
***So your standard for berating those involved is capricious, to say the least, and trollish, to be more accurate.
But why should I have to justify my participation on these threads?
***Because you are acting like a troll on certifiGate threads, the only “conspiracy” issue that has made it this far. Note that you didn’t answer the question...again... like what trolls do.
Why is it any more necessary than you justifying yours? This is silly.
***Didn’t answer the question, like a troll. You won’t get down to your threshold, your standard for determining what is a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory worthy of scorn compared to a legitimate issue. The reason is because you’re capricious about it and you know that your standard will fall apart under scrutiny, revealing you to be a troll.
This one doesn’t either. These cases have been submitted. So far they’ve done nothing but get denied.
***Obfuscation, typical troll behavior. Note that it does not answer the question, tries for a deflect. No other issue has made it this far with 5 concurrent cases before SCOTUS and you know it. That legitimizes the issue.