Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:


Sullivan's attorney seems to be arguing... let's keep going. You never know what Sullivan is gonna do!

Man, what Flynn has to say must really be something that the #resistance crowd is going to these lengths.

 

 

Sullivan's attorney is floundering. Weakest of the three so far. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Sullivan's attorney is floundering. Weakest of the three so far. 

 

She's latched on to her only good argument -- that this motion for Mandamus is not timely.

 

I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus.  Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position.  That IS adversarial.  She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

She's latched on to her only good argument -- that this motion for Mandamus is not timely.

 

I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus.  Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position.  That IS adversarial.  She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial.

 

 

Hoax.  The amicus assists the court’s understanding of an issue or of the case as a whole.  That’s not adversarial. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, snafu said:

I think Sullivan's attorney is misrepresenting the reason why Sullivan appointed the Amicus.  Sullivan's order said (if I remember) that the Amicus was supposed to take the position of the government because in this case there's nobody taking that position.  That IS adversarial.  She's arguing that the Amicus isn't adversarial.

 

 

:beer:

Posted
4 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Hoax.  The amicus assists the court’s understanding of an issue or of the case as a whole.  That’s not adversarial. 

 

Normally, I'd agree.  However, in this case, Sullivan instructed Gleeson to argue as if he were the DOJ.

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

Wall's summary is using Gleeson's brief against Sullivan to argue why mandamus now IS a timely request -- and why this case shouldn't go to argument on July 16.

 

HaHa, that was a puffball question at the end there.

 

 

 

Edited by snafu
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

Normally, I'd agree.  However, in this case, Sullivan instructed Gleeson to argue as if he were the DOJ.

 

 

Fair point.  The amicus still is a friend, but in this case the friend has a unique role to play.  I mostly agree with your response. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 



Since Sullivan already has had time to "do the right thing and dismiss" - as a matter of fact, nothing is stopping him from doing it right now, well, nothing we concretely know, I am not certain what the point in continuing would be except to drag this out to when Sullivan "gets around" to signing. 


 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Cinga said:

 

Why don't you look it up and get back to us?

 

He's too busy trying to spread lies and gaslighting the board (then deleting the thread when he's exposed for doing precisely that). 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

And now he's here, to re-climb a hill he already died on. That's how desperate Gary's become. His cowardly dishonesty gets exposed (again), he deletes a thread then runs to try to change the subject from his own asshattery to ... a position he's going to end up looking foolish once again for supporting. 

 

Why does Gary do all this? Why does he go through so much trouble everyday just to troll? Because he's a bad person who is here with ill will and a mission to defend the indefensible. That's all he is. 

 

You can't even call him a man. He's like an early draft of a man where they just sketched out a giant, mangled skeleton but they didn't have time to add details like pigment or self-respect. He's Frankenstein's monster, if his monster was made entirely of dead dikks. 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Posted
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

C'mon dog - this was 9 minutes ago

 

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

He should be ignored by all. 

 

Stop being intellectually dishonest

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...