My instinct is that this is closer to the truth than we know and it could be far more insidious, e.g., maybe they got a different deal to _not_ fight this case. That is a super scandalous allegation and I’m not saying its true, I’m just saying that I don’t buy that a case that everyone seems uniformly convinced was so constitutionally important couldn’t get sufficient funding for it, I just don’t buy that.
Discussion
How would you think about putting together defense arguments in this case?
I wouldn’t because I don’t have access to the information that his lawyers did, I wouldn’t even begin to pretend how to do that, but the problem is they apparently couldn’t generate money to defend themselves which is curious to me.
Yes i understand you didn’t take discovery in this case. My point is that i also don’t buy the idea that funding was the constraint.
This was a losing fight from the jump. Their lawyers probably recognized this.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll guess that a lot of capital was put into smoothing things over to get the desired outcome. Blackmail, favors, threats, money, etc. Those guys made some kind of enemy, and that enemy is destroying them.
And everyone is just yelling Injustice! from the sidelines without lifting a finger. Like you said, very fishy.
I see a panther sneaking into a house, killing its inhabitants, and the neighbors watching it happen yelling, "Trespassing is illegal! The panther should have never crossed the fence!" As if predators really care about laws.
You are the second person other than me I saw post about this that isn't trapped in the mental framework of statism being valid.
And then there were 3. Let's see who else we can get.