“Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?”
Nope
“She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.”
You changed to this position later, at first you insisted (over and over) that she would have a hearing. and that if her case was dismissed it would be the first time in history remeber when yo said this “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”
It is quite a redefinition of ” a court case” to include a case being thrown out as moot, as coun
“So either you are too Lazy to read the File”
read it already
“Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?”
No. It is becasue I find our discussions fascinating.
“I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.”
Yes, I got your new definition of judgment. And I suppose it is also “hav[ing] a court case” correct?
I’m not sure why you are copying wikipedia. I know what a moot case is, As I told you months (literallly) ado that the case wouldn’t be heard since would be moot.
There was no judgment and will be none.
As You correctly quote from Wikipedia …a moot case must be dismissed,…” there is no decision, there is no judgment it is “dismissed”
See later on in Wikipedia whci h YOU quoted) where they compared t to “ripeness” where it is even more explicit “..that holds that judges SHOULD NOT RULE on cases based entirely on anticipated disputes…”
The question posed was whether enough evidence to support claims of violations of elections (among other things)
What did the court decide?
What will they decide?
They of course won’t (as I’ve ben saying for months)
They aren’t “deciding” it is moot. That wasn’t (and isn’t) the question
The case will be dismissed (because it is now moot)