Health
I’m going to back up a bit
I think the discussion over your reinterpretation of “hearing” isnt going anywhere. IF you won’t listen to the definition YOU provided that proves you wrong, you certainly won’t listen to me.
LEts get back to the subject at hand.
On Jan 18 I told you The court would dismiss the case for being moot .
You called me a liar and brought up “Goyish” prophets to back up you claim.
My question is 2 fold (though they are linked)
1) Why didnt you mention this reinterpretation of “hearing” then why did you only think of it on feb 4 , 2 weeks later? You should have said on Jan 18, something to the effect of “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however that is still a hearing” Why when I said it will be dismissed as moot did you say I was a liar?
when I said “. The Supreme court doesn’t hear cases that are moot, ie theoretical cases with no practical ramification (Article III section 2 of the constitution limits court’s scope to “cases & controversies” . Any election litigation is now theoretical Biden won (even if unfairly) There is a zero percent chance that the case will be heard. Zero.”
As soon as you saw that, you should have said whoa that makes no sense declaring it moot IS a hearing,? Why did you only think of this reinterpretation 2 weeks later?
2) Even if I was using a “lay person” definition and not a “legal one” Thats ok I’m a lay person. You should have said on Jan 18 “oh you mean it will be dismissed as moot, that may happen. however legally that is still a hearing”
I said it would be dismissed as moot , you called me a liar
It was dismissed as moot
why can’t you grant that?
Earlier you said “your a baal gaivah how were yo uso sure” For arguments sake, fine it wass pure gaivah., and I got lucky. but I was right, I didnt lie, at least on the dismissal.
why can’t you grant that?