You’re arguing a different issue than I am.
First, your hypothetical has very little to do with how federal appellate courts actually function or the kinds of injunctions they issue. If you’re going to discuss the scope of judicial authority, it helps to use examples that reflect how the courts actually operate.
Second, precision is the foundation of legal discussion. The fact that this is the internet doesn’t somehow make factual accuracy or precise language irrelevant. My comment was a narrow factual correction to an incorrect statement about the judiciary. Nothing more.
Third, I’m not interested in taking the conversation where you’re trying to take it. You seem to want a broad, emotionally charged debate about nationwide immigration policy. That’s a perfectly separate discussion, but it isn’t the one I was having.
Finally, I have no issue with emotion. Passion has its place. What it doesn’t do is change how the law works. If the discussion is about the legal authority of federal courts, then the answer depends on legal precision, not rhetorical intensity.
someone@lemmy.today 5 days ago
But this isn’t being argued in a court with narrow technical rules and extremely precise procedural requirements, it was being argued online… You’re looking at the argument from the perspective of a narrow technical argument from a procedural court perspective, I am looking it how it realistically affects people in their actual lives… which is what makes sense… for an internet discussion.
You’re clearly a lawyer or a judge or something, and it wouldn’t surprise me if you’ve filed your fair share of motions that weren’t just in a local court, but you’re still wrong on this and I’m not conceding. Yes, my responses would not be appropriate for a court filing… but also, they make sense outside of that situation.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Dude, don’t you realize you have no chance with this argument? Mechoman is the chair of the Nebraska Board of Tourism! He’s the genius mind behind those award-winning slogans we all remember, like “Nebraska: We’re relevant, damnit!” and “Nebraska: Don’t scratch it, that will just make it worse!”.
Seriously though, if you wanna get stuck in with them I can really recommend it - poking holes in their arguments is like bubble wrap for the rhetorical soul - but I just wanted to chine in and mention that you’ve brought some truly excellent points, and to make sure nobody’s taking this goober too seriously.
There’s a lot of stuff that either sucks or is downright horrible in the world right now, honestly even more than there was last month, and some people really just aren’t worth considering.
Anyways, you seem cool. I hope your day/night/timezone is going and continues to go well for you. Peace.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 4 days ago
You don’t have to concede anything. No one ever does anyway.
The fact that this is a courtroom or a Lemmy comment thread doesn’t somehow negate the accuracy of the language being used. The context doesn’t change what the words mean.
And frankly, there’s nothing for you to concede. You’ve already admitted that I’m right and you’re wrong. Your only remaining argument is apparently that because this isn’t a courtroom, I’m somehow wrong—which is some impressive mental gymnastics.
“You’re right in the only place where it matters, therefore you’re wrong here.”
Okay. You said some stupid-ass shit, got called out on it, couldn’t come up with a response for weeks, and what you’ve finally come up with is still bullshit.
Don’t worry about it. I got you.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.