You are pontificating on a subject about which you know essentially nothing.
I try not to pontificate on subject matters like quantum mechanics and C++ that I am not competent to opine on.
Iâm not pontificating about what will happen, Iâm asking why you believed Trump would immediately be sprung. You havenât answered that, and Iâm still interested, Part of the whole ipse dixit business is actually dixitting, you knowâŚ.
As a courtesy, I offered some possibilities to 1) make it easier for you to say, âyeah, that oneâ, or 2) lets you pick one which demonstrates the category error Iâm making through lack of basic knowledge, and 3) tacitly giving you my general level of legal reasoning, knowledge of the law and basic court procedures.
If that doesnât help, I wonât waste my time on it, and we can just exchange âthat wonât happenâ âyes it willâ âno it wonâtâ until a couple weeks after the thread is over.
We interact from time to time. I am not a lawyer, I know nothing of courtroom procedure, and little of statutory and case law. I have some background in managing inter-organization cooperation, and quickly discovered I was going to the bar after work with the lawyers: they were natural allies, and even if I couldnât draft contracts, I was OK at issue-spotting reading them.
Itâs not your job to teach me and the forum the law. Iâm busy, youâre busy. Iâm still earnestly interested in why you said what you did; if would take six paragraphs to explain my error, I can see why youâd pass. But I donât understand why youâd make the naked assertion without even four words of Latin, or mentioning some mono-named case law. Just saying âit wonât workâ means nobody learns anything, except âsomebody with the handle txlawyer says itâs hopeless, give up.â
I am particularly unhappy when politicians in my coalition refuse to embark on legal and well-precedented action by just saying âwe will not support action X because nobodyâs done it in 60 years; itâs hopeless.â I think thatâs the nerve you hit, indirectly. My problem, not yours.