Comment on Supreme Court weakens federal regulators with Chevron overturning, threatening net neutrality, right to repair, big tech regulation, and more

• EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders

  No you didn’t. You made a claim about a court case that doesn’t exist. You didn’t link to anything or even name it.

  Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see

  You’re right, my eyes won’t allow me to see the fantasy you’ve created.

  You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.

  Don’t blame me for your inability to support your claims.

  source

  • retrospectology@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I linked you directly to an article discussing the lawsuit.

    observer.com/…/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasser…

    On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate**. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,”** the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.

    I’m blocking you now. Good bye.

    source

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      First, let me apologize i thought it was another poster who had linked to that.

      Second, i addressed it, i didn’t ignore it. You ignored my rebuttal. But i will try again here:

      Even what you quote here doesn’t say the court ruled it was true.

      You’re just exposing your own ignorance, as often the court doesn’t bother to determine if the plaintiffs claims are true, they just assume they’re true and then rule they don’t have a case because they aren’t claiming someone broke the law.

      This doesn’t say it is true, only that it doesn’t matter whether it’s true because it has no bearing on their ruling.

      source