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
I read that and did not really disagree until I heard a by wpkirish
commentator last night discussng the idea in my post above.
The Court used its power to skip the Appellate Court under a procedure for cases "such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require im-
mediate determination in this Court.".
The most recent two examples are the Student Loan Forgiveess and Eviction Moratorium cases. Do you think the immunity decision is any less public importance than those? I obviously do not.
I have not reached the point of thinking the Court did this to help Trump but it is hard to see a justification for the different decisions.