Maybe so, but it would be more effective to offer up any kind of argument as to why it is nonsense beyond just saying as much. That specific part isn't very good briefing, but they were operating under significant time constraints so they weren't going to produce a masterpiece.
If the SC takes it and just instantly throws it out, Biden will basically face an insurgency his entire presidency. He will be four years of nothing while everything he does gets flouted, because the SC just gave everyone carte blanche to say 'fuck it'. It will be four years of putting out fires while he's torn apart constantly.
Not really, because the Texas briefing didn't really go into detail either, other than just making the claims. The rebuttal isn't really a place where you're supposed to go super into detail. It's kind of like a highlight reel versus an entire game
Once again, remember how Biden was supposed to win and everything would be calm and normal?
I interpreted it as a clumsy attempt at friendly banter that falls flat because it's not coming from a genuine place and he's assuming familiarity that's just not there. Like if your jackass boss that you barely see just casually calls you nigga.
This level of ad hom in a brief may be fine for the initial complaint on a trial court level, but it is not acceptable for a brief to the Supreme Court. It's not a deal breaker, but it looks bad as hell and certainly won't endear you to the justices.
www.bizpacreview.com
True, and I also admit that I needed to have read the document more clearly, because they did make some more reasoned arguments about it in the following paragraphs, albeit with some pretty sharp language for a SCOTUS filing. Mea culpa on that one.
has anyone read the texas filing? i might start over with that one.page 11 mo v ca said:
This announcement imo is pretty fucked, because it basically turns all of US foreign policy on its head. Recognizing the sovereignty of an occupying power with practically no legal rights to the land at the expense of the local population is just something you don't do in current geopolitics world. Yes, I know this is rich coming from an unironic Zionist who openly believes that Israel should keep its control over the occupied territories, but we're not supposed to openly state that we're playing realpolitik because that's not how international relations work since 1945. This basically justifies the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, the Russian occupation of Crimea, etc., and makes us look like unilateralist assholes for the sake of a cheap publicity stunt.
Oh it could get worse.
Those times happened when America shared a unifying spirit. That spirit no longer exists
Hasn't Morocco claimed the Western Sahara for decades? It's a bunch of sand where nobody but nomadic Bedouins live, who gives a shit?
Not to rain on your fantasies that Red States would win a hypothetical civil war, but do you know who also had overwhelming support in rural areas against a side with support mostly from urban centers? The Whites in the Russian Civil War and Royalists in the English Civil War? I wonder how well holding all of the rural areas worked out for them.
I agree Morocco has been engaging in open war on the Sahrawi people for decades and they abuse them in the parts of the coast they already had.
Lol I think you're taking my position further than I actually stated. This isn't trading favors to Israel, because Morocco has for all intents and purposes maintained unofficial diplomatic relations with Israel since the 70's. This is a cheap publicity stunt meant to endear him to Trump's Pro-Israel base and prove his capabilities as a diplomat, while discrediting our country's positions on other occupations that we disagree with policy-wise and generally discrediting us on the international stage.
