This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Denying cert also complies with the rule of law. by John@Indy
Trump's argument is frivolous, and would have been considered laughable at any time before he asserted it. It certainly would have been news to Gerald Ford, who blew up his re-election campaign before it began by pardoning Nixon, or to Bill Clinton, who surrendered his law license on his last day in office as part of a deal to avoid indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice.
If the issues are obviously "so important that SCOTUS needs to decide them," simply because a former president is involved, and there was no circumstance in which SCOTUS would decline to hear the case, then they should have taken it when Smith requested it in December.