[DoodleDawg]

But the court is reviewing this case. In the decision that Justice Thomas was dissenting on the court did not even allow the plaintiff to file a Bill of Complaint. Texas has filed theirs.

And just because Justice Thomas thinks a case should be heard is not necessarily meaningful. Every single 9 to 0 decision against the plaintiff in an appeals case started when at least four justices thought the case should be heard. We have no idea what the justices are thinking on this case, nor should we.

[Fury]

Re: 310 - Agreed. I think the difference this time is the nature of the case and the issues it touches upon and the change in the makeup of the Court.

I mentioned Thomas specifically because after reading his reasoning in that dissent, I thought he had a compelling argument. but both sides think they have a compelling argument in legal proceedings.

And also mentioned Thomas because ACLJ goofed on what Thomas stated in his dissent.