all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hi @BevelGear - Could you clarify a bit what kind of discussion you're after by posting this? Also, most folks on Beehaw are probably not lawyers so posting a supreme court ruling without any commentary or clarification probably isn't the most conducive to good discussion.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    It was an interesting document to skim through and wanted to share it for the curious. That is all.

    I understand you would like discussion and I apologize for disappointing you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is, at best, 17 months old. (That October 2023 overline makes things unclear.)

    It's fine to point out older sources; dumping them without context isn't particularly useful. As a community, we're here to have conversations, which this post does not engender. It's not a matter of the topic, just that it's old and has no bearing on current events.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Sorry if it seems like you're being scolded - that's not my intention. I think it's fine to post something like this, but maybe I'm the future a brief explanation of why you found it worth posting would be helpful to get the discussion started - either in the post body or a comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    What about this old case that probably won't result in anything because the SC has no integrity?

  • source