Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end?

Ubiq -“To which you replied (as late as Jan 7 !!!) that she was still “… going to SCOTUS and I even posted the 2 case numbers here, because you were too Lazy to look for them yourself!” (note NOT that she went already and submitted her briefs, but that there would still be a hearign in the old, ordinary defintion of the word)”

Let me ask you something – Do you have a problem understanding simple posts?!?
She put all her proofs in her Files/Motion.
Yet you keep posting to me -“The lie I identified was that she claimed she would release evidence “soon” and “soon” had already past”.
So either you are too Lazy to read the File or you can’t understand my Simple Posts!

“To which I replied, that no her case would never be heard
To which You called me a liar.”

Unfortunately you don’t have any understanding of Legal terms, but you continue to Argue that you are Right.
Is it because that you have a Lot of Gaiva?!?

I tried to explain this before to you – if the SCOTUS decides that a case is Moot – that is a judgment.
That means that they read/heard the Case before them!
This is from Wikipedia, but I looked at a lot of Legal sites and it’s almost identical:
“In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed, there being a constitutional limitation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The reason for this is that Article Three of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of all federal courts to “cases and controversies”. Thus, a civil action or appeal in which the court’s decision will not affect the rights of the parties is ordinarily beyond the power of the court to decide, provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions.”

Health

new question

When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she lied

MadeAliyah

you wish

Health

“Who do you think dismisses cases – you or the Court?!?”

The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed

““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””

Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.
You did not mention any exception until yesterday.

Of course time proved me correct. Do you have the resolve to say “Wow Ubiq you were right when you said the curt wouldn’t issue a ruling, I’m sorry I called you a liar” ?
Lol! of course not. Instead you redefine basic words

“I think I explained it so well, even a First Grader can understand my posts!!!”

You do! I understood every word of all that you’ve posted. Do not worry

Repeating my new questions
When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she lied

Ubiq -“The court does. The court doesn’t rule on theoretical cases neither on issues that have not materialized (ripeness) nor on things that already happened, and cant be undone (mootness) in Both of these situations, the court does not issue a judgment. Instead the case is dismissed”
““provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions””
“Lol! I told you (months ago) that it did. you called me a liar. You only YESTERDAY said that. Way back on 12/20 you said ““Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards””
I told you then (and many times since) there would be no court case, you called me a liar.”

I tried to dumb it down that a first grader would understand, but obviously that’s not good enough for You!
Yes, they have to read the case or motion to see if there is any exceptions in the case.
This is called having a Court Case.
They haven’t done that yet.
When they do and if there isn’t any exceptions in it, then they can issue a judgment.
This judgment can be something called moot or something else!
You’re confusing the term moot in laymen’s terms with Legal terms.
It’s not an automatic definition – “it’s Moot”.

You should become a DemonCrat Politician, because they Impeach Presidents on PC terms!
I already posted in different Topics, that what Trump did or said, didn’t qualify to be Unconstitutional or Illegal!
That’s the problem with DemonCrats – they practice PC law.
(That’s why almost no one was prosecuted, Fully, during the Left Libs Riots, all last year!)
But I got news for them – we already have laws and the Constitution – there is a process to change them & it’s Not on their Whim!

Ubiq -“And again, although you are redefining words to try to fit your wrong point. It STILL doesn’t help you. You said she would be hard in court. Surely you must grant she won’t b invited to said conference. So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot””

I don’t know how times I have to tell you – that your interpretation is Not a Legal one!
Moot is a judgment, no matter how many times you lie and say it’s not!
That’s why You can’t determine whether a case is Moot, only a Judge.

“I STILL didn’t lie when I told you (over and over) that her case wouldn’t be heard”

On Feb 5 – I wrote:
“That’s called being heard.
If they make a judgment of moot, then they read/heard the case”

Do you know what the slash between words means?
Obviously you don’t, but I’ll tell you for Free.
It means one or the other, Not both!

Ubiq -“Interpretation of what?”

Of this:
“that your interpretation is Not a Legal one!”
“So even if we suspend English, and redefine “having a court case” to include “dismissing a case for being moot””

Why must I explain things that even a kindergarten kid understands?!?

“And you really thought all this time I was saying the court was just going to ignore the case , without formally dismissing it?”

Don’t put words in my mouth!

“(Furthermore Your claim, of what you meant isn’t plausible since AFTER her briefs were submitted, you still insisted she would reveal more evidence in court when her “case is heard”

Again you misunderstood what I wrote.
At that time I didn’t read her file – so I didn’t know that her motion contained her evidence.
This is what happens when you post things on websites for political points!
If you had a drop of honesty – you’d ask her.
She has email and you could have sent her by regular mail.
She might have given you an answer.
But of course, You and the rest of the DemonCrats think – you’re in the right!

Btw, the case is Still pending, but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.
How do you know that? Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?
The Gemorah says Nevious is given to one of those 3 types after the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed.

Ubiq -“I replied (correctly) that her case won’t be heard.
what did You think I meant…”
“no not a judgment of moot, but they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”

And again – how do you know that?
“Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?
The Gemorah says Nevious is given to one of those 3 types after the Bais Hamikdosh was destroyed.”

“You were lying correct?”

I was mistaken. Don’t tell me that you don’t know the difference between mistaken and lying.
Well I’ll tell you – mistaken is by accident – lying is trying to manipulate or deceive s/o!

“When (if?) Powell settles or loses her court case against Dominion, and either agrees that she lied, or it is ruled that she lied.
Will you then agree that she lied”

IDK of any Court Case with Powell.
Tell me whether it’s Federal or State and where was this case filed.
Also the Docket number.

Ubiq -“I’m smart?”

That’s Not my opinion!

“From reading, following the law?”
Most people think that, but they can’t actually do it.
I actually have!

“also see below
You dont always need a navi to predict the future. If you drop a glass it will break.”

It’s not in the least bit comparable!

Ok, I just went to the case.
She asked for an extension for her “Reply”.
She’ll probably get one because Plantiff didn’t oppose it.
It’s too early to even ask questions about this lawsuit.
Ask me much later.

Of course it was denied. It’s way past anything that SCOTUS could change. This is a judgment of moot.
And I’m sure they read the Motions.

“And I’m sure they read the Motions.”

They may have, (though impossible to tell from the order and dissents)

The court denied certiorari. Certiorari is the process when a higher court reviews the lower court’s decision. SCOTUS denied it, meaning they aren’t reviewing the case.

They aren’t saying anything as to whether there was fraud, or whether Pensylvanis’ court had right to change deadline. They simply arent ruling on it.

As spelled out in Thomas’s dissent “The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for
leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot” (note not “judged as moot”) later in the dicisio he describes the court as “doing nothing ”
similarly Gorsuch and Alito in their dissent, agree with Tomas that ” we should grant review in these cases.” Becasue the court DID NOT reviwe it. The petiton for the court to review the case was denied,. The case WAS NOT heard. and again “These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. ”

Health

“Did you ever take a case to SCOTUS, like I did?”
no

“They might tell e/o that it is dismissed as being Moot, but what does that mean?”

Already explained it to you January 18th. after which you insisted that I was wrong, the case would still be “heard” and that I was a liar

“I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”
Maybe, maybe not .
Regardless Doesn’t change the fact that I correctly said this would happen months ago, and AFTER I told you this you said I was a liar

“In other words, it’s really a Judgment.”
Thats not how words work. words have definitions, not all words are interchangeable

“Stop confusing yourself that it’s not Really a Judgment.”
not confused. Even if Thomas is wrong when he wrote the court declined to review the case.

It still doesnt chaneg the fact that when I told you January 18th that the case would be dismissed as moot, I was not lying.

At any rate looking forward to the outcome in Powell’s case.
I’m super excited to see what pretzel logic you will come up with to defend her when (if) it is ruled that she lied, or she settles and apologizes

“Yes, they read almost every case & then they make decisions.”

Lol at “almost” So maybe this is one of the cases they didn’t read?
(and again, ‘m not saying they didn’t read it, I read it it didn’t take that long,I’m sure they did too)

“Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t.”
correct. I’m glad to have explained this to you.
On Dec 20th you didn’t know that, you said the opposite: “Then that will be the first time in history – that SCOTUS accepted a petition, but didn’t have a Court case afterwards!”

Then you were under the mistaken impression that once a petition is accepted they always have a “court case” Now you correctly note “Sometimes they’ll take the case, sometimes they won’t”

You are most welcome!

“When they don’t want to take it – they have different ways to get rid of it.
One of the ways is to get rid of it – is by dismissed it because it was moot!”

correct! As I have been telling you for months. They don’t always take court cases (as you now agree) Though in the past you called me a liar when I said this.

The court chooses which cases to hear. I told you (over and over) that they would not hear Powell’s case. You called me a liar .

“SCOTUS doesn’t work the way you think”

It works exactly As Ive been telling you for months

.
“I found out how it works – when I did my case.”

Was your case this week? Because a few weeks ago you didn’t know how it worked. I think this may be the source of your confusion you are confusing secret supreme court with regular supreme court. I don’t know anything about secret supreme court.

In regular suprme court they don’t always hear the case as you correctly note now, and not like you said Dec 20.
no thanks are necessary for my having explained this to you It is my pleasure .

Health

“is in case a clown like you took a Federal case all the way up to SCOTUS.
They wouldn’t waste their time to even read it!”

ding ding ding!
nailed it!
Yes!
when there are clowns invloved the case is certain to get tossed!*

“How many times do I have to tell you that they read it and made decisions on it, ie. Judgment?!?”
hopefully no more times, since it is wrong, as you finally acknowledged “they read the case and decided not to take it.”
Ie they decide NOT to take the Court case, if they decide not to take the case, then there is no case.

and again, even if there was a case, still doesn’t change the fact that when I told you Jan 18th the case would be dismissed as moot, and I was lying, I wasnt lying.

“Before you comment on things that you Know Nothing about – How about researching the the Topic?!?”

Lol!
I was right on every prediction I made on this thread, you have been mystified has to how I know all these things asking “but how do you know that”

* BTW this is the answer to your question posed Feb 8 (before the Court denied certiorari, ie. declined to hear the case)
I had said “…they will dismiss it without judgment (probably for being moot)”
You asked “And again – how do you know that? “Are you either a Shoita, Koton or Deaf?”

You would have known it to, if you just put down your blinders , as you correctly note a case brought by a clown wouldn’t stand a chance of being heard, or even read.

“Let’s get it straight – I was only talking about You & your friends!”

Sydney Powell ad I aren’t friends

“Yes, this is called a case, even though you call it “No case””

Lol You calld it No case these are your words.: “I’ll tell what it means – they read the case and decided not to take it.”

“This is what I wrote:…. So this is called Lying.”

ah but I was right, a simple apology is in order

“In this case, they decided that they wouldn’t hear it”

Yep like Ive’ been telling you for months

“For you to constantly post -“that they wouldn’t hear it”, is because of your Haughtiness, that you think You are a Know It All!”

you can say it was because whatever you want. Haughtiness, shoteh, genius, navi. Bottom line s I was right.

“If you would have posted – it’s likely that they wouldn’t have a Full Blown Case, like Perry Mason, I wouldn’t have replied to that Post!”
Lol I never would have said that. You made up this distiction between “full blown case ” and not. There is no such thing in real supreme court . The court either hears a case or doesn’t

Ubiq -““This is what I wrote:
“Btw, the case is Still pending, but you know that the SCOTUS will give a Judgement of “Moot”.
How do you know that?””
So this is called Lying.”

“The court either hears a case or doesn’t”

What you don’t understand or you pretend Not to understand, is the SCOTUS reads all the cases and decides what to do with them.
In this case, they decided to go with dismissal because of Moot.
I posted this previously:
This is from Wikipedia:
“In the U.S. federal judicial system, a moot case must be dismissed,… provided it does not fall within one of the recognized exceptions.”

“Yes that is what you wrote.
Except I wasn’t lying I was exactly right.”

Yes, you guessed correctly, but the reason that you’re a Liar, is because you as a Layman could Not have possibly known whether the SCOTUS would dismiss it or Not!
Why you might ask?
Because you could never have known whether this case of Moot wouldn’t “fall within one of the recognized exceptions.”
So guessing on the Courts’ Judgment with such certainly, definitely makes you a Liar & a Baal Gaiva!

Ubiq -“In your view if a person predicts (guesses) what will happen, and was right. He is a liar.”
“I told you (over and over) that they would not hear Powell’s case. You called me a liar .”

For the fortieth time, you wrote “not hear Powell’s case”, this is in Laymen’s terms.
I told you years ago that I brought many cases to court, so why would you post to me like that?
The reason I think was to Show Off to e/o.

But you knew better than to write to me – they wouldn’t hear it.
Because that implies that they don’t even read it, but SCOTUS reads their cases & they give decisions (Judgments)!
You have an obsession on what’s called hearing on a case.
It’s like they won’t even look at any evidence.
They look at evidence and they hear/read cases before them!
Like I said before -“If you would have posted – it’s likely that they wouldn’t have a Full Blown Case, like Perry Mason, I wouldn’t have replied to that Post”!

Ubiq -“I have an obsession with facts.”

Only the facts that you decide are facts. Facts are Facts no matter what you Decide!

“Because that implies that they don’t even read it, but SCOTUS reads their cases & they give decisions (Judgments)!”
“No you made that inference. I explicitly said the case would be dismissed as moot. If you didn’t know what that m ant or entailed, that is in you.”

After all these posts, you still don’t get it!
Moot is a judgment. They make this judgment whether they grant Certiorari or Not.

“First they have to agree to hear the case. This is called granting certiorari. It was not granted in this case. The court refused to hear it.”

Again they read every case, if they still aren’t Sure they grant Certiorari and get more info & testimony.
In this case, they were sure because it didn’t “fall within one of the recognized exceptions”.
So they read it and it wasn’t one of the exceptions, then they gave a Judgment of Moot!

“You called me a liar.”
Ok, now I understand that you’re an accidental Liar!

I reread your past few posts
and you are getting more desperate making up more things and repeating the same nonsense over and over .

I’ll keep it simple:
Let me know where you lose me

1. I said the case would be dismissed as moot.
2. You said I was a liar
3. The case was dismissed for being moot
4. Ergo I did not lie , and you should apologize

If you have any lingering questions or any points that still confuse you that you need clarification on I am of course happy to take the time to explain it to you. (free of charge!)

If you have no questions but just want to repeat your same nonsense “judgment of moot” that you learnt in secret supreme court, that is fine too. all of which has already been replied to (over and over)

If you have nothing new to add. See you back here when (if) Powell admits she lied (or judge rules she did) I’m super excited to hear what new “logic” you come up with to STILL back her up once she herself admits she lied.

all the best!

Health

Thanks for a new point!
Sadly, it is still wrong.

You said:
“Your statements, especially before the Judgment, that it will be dismissed as Moot, is Only because of your Extreme Gaiva!!!”

Again that could be (as I said earlier) , But Gaivah and Liar are not synonymous nor interchangeable.

a lie is something that is untrue
a baal Gaivah or one who is arrogant is one who has exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities
They are not interchangeable

Here is an example to help:
If I say “I am certain it will snow tomorrow! I am 100% sure it will snow!”
If it snows tomorrow, then I didn’t lie. I may have been a baal gaivah for being so sure. But if I was right and it snowed then I told the truth,

(As to whether in fact I was a baal gaivah I would like to quote my dear friend Health who said “I and a lot of people realized that they were delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”
Lots of people knew the court was delaying to avoid getting involved in other words to avoid judging the case (of course they HAD to get involved they had to accept the petition but can choose not to hear it nor pass judgment rather to just dismiss it.
But lots of people knew this. I have no special abilities, I’m surprised you didnt know it, I was telling you over and over. Perhaps you should have listened to Health who says he knew it too, instead of arguing for 2 months about a case that Health says he knew the court was “delaying the case so they wouldn’t have to get involved.”
To be clear I definitely have some Gaivah, but in this case you overestimate my gaivah. my knowledge didn’t come from any special ability. It is something ” a lot of people realized” even Health claims he realized it Sadly, you didnt and called me a liar when I said it)

mods
love the new title

Health

“This is what I called you a Liar on:”

that was once

here is another “but what I know is that you are a Compulsive Liar!”
This was on Jan 18. Earlier that day at 6:35 PM I explained to you that the case would be dismissed as moot, I cited chapter and verse, why The Court doesnt rule on moot cases.
You did not say “Oh but it still will be heard” , that redefitnion of “heard” only came later.
Instead you said I lied when I said the case would be dismissed. you cited Goyish prohpets to back up your claim .

On Jan 19 I explained again “On Jan 20 (tomorrow) it will certainly be irrelevant (arguably it was irrelevant on Jan 6 or even Dec 14 (this is one argument made by the City of Detroit and the Governor in their briefs )
This is why they were hoping for an expedition, it was denied.
The case will not be heard.”

To which you replied “I think this is another one of your Manipulating Lies!” AFTER I explained it will be dismissed as moot

A few days later you came up with the nonsensical idea that this is still called “judgment”

“We have a difference of Opinion what “Heard” means with regards to Court Cases.”
no I told you what heard meant, and you made up your own defintion not found in any dictionary.

“In a lot of trials, it never goes to the point of e/o physically being there, but instead they Judge up on the case w/o that!”

ummm, yeah. Exactly as Ive been telling you for months.

“But even though you’re a Know It All”
I’m not a know it all.

I was dead wrong, I thought when faced with black and White evidence. I said the case would be dismissed as moot, you said Iwas lying, It was dimsissed, you say “sorry you were right”

Never did I dream you’d redefine “heard” “judgment” and “case” all in an effort to do what ?
Avoiding saying “sorry for calling you a liar”?

I was wrong. plain and simple

Lol health!
Sure there could have been thousands of reasons. don’t forget 3 justices voted to hear it. I knew a majority wouldnt’ but I could have been wrong (in whcih case we can quibble If I lied, or was mistaken)
But I was right, the case was not heard

you provide an excellent defintion of heard/hearing:
““Any proceeding before a Judge or other magistrate, w/o a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. Etc.””

YES! nailed it “….in which evidence and/or argument is presented …” EXACTLY right. A confrence in which the judges discuss among themselves whether to accept the case (whcih is what happened Feb 22), with no evidence or arguments presented. Is NOT a hearing.
It was originally scheduled for Feb 19. Have a look at SCOTUS’s calendar 2/19 was NOT an argument day (argument days marked in red) it was a conference day (marked in green) There were NO arguments there was no evidence presented.
According to the Defitnion YOU provided it was not a hearing.
Hopefullly Health, if you have the tiem to read the correct defitnion of hearing provided by Health, you will see it says exactly what I have been saying. and not as Health has been wrngly claiming that the case was heard.

And again, to belabor the point, you said I was a liar for saying it would be dismissed as moot, so even if a hearing took place (and none did see the defitnion provided by Health) you should still apologize for calling me a liar, when I so clearly told the truth

I think this is my favorite conversation with you yet.

“How many times do I have to tell you – that the Motions contained the evidence and they read the Motions?!?”

hopefully no more times. since it isnt correct. The motions contianed evidence on the CASe. The court did not hear the case .

A writ of Certiorari is when a higher court reviews the case of a lower court.
The supreme court DENIED the writ to quote from the Supre court’s order “The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied. ” (easily available online search (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021)

Like everything you’ve said on this topic you have more terms mixed up:

“An argument day is when they declared a Writ of Centorari.
In a conference day, they could have a Hearing.”

This is incorrect.

Argument days are when ” an opportunity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties to the case, and for the attorneys to highlight arguments that they view as particularly important. Arguments are generally scheduled on specified Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday mornings beginning on the first Monday in October, and continuing through the end of April” (see supremecourt . gov where this quote is pulled verbatim)

Conference days are when ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review”

It is on conference days (NOT argument days) that Certiori is granted/denied . note Judges conference is PRIVATE. “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc” (source UScourts . gov)
There is no hearing, there are no arguments. The Justices discuss cases that had been heard and whether should hear others

“And that’s what they did and then they made a Judgment to dismiss the case due to Mootness!”

Yes As I said they would (though technically not a judgment, they denied certiorari because of its mootness)

Soooooooo I didn’t lie…..

Your’e starting to repeat yourself more , I’m starting to worry you arent reading my posts.

I’ll still gladly reply to nay new information you provide (like definitions of “hearing” that prove you wrong, or correct your mixed up conference/argument days)
and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer
but if you are just going to repeat “judgment of mootness” over and over , then sadly our fun might have to end

Health

“So they heard the case on the day of a conference.”

no such thing
Heard = ” Any proceeding before a Judge or other magistrate, w/o a jury in which evidence and/or argument is presented to determine some issue of fact or both issues of fact and law. Etc” (defintion supplied by you. Well done!)
conference = ” The Justices meet in a private conference to discuss cases argued earlier that week. The Justices also discuss and vote on petitions for review” (from Supreme court website)

There is no “proceeding before a judge” on conference days. The only people in attendene are the judges. They mean different things.

“So do they come to the conclusion?… They read the case and they make decisions on it”

Even if they did. (and Earlier I said I’m sure they sometimes read it, and you said they “almost alays read it)
That in no way whatsoever changes the fact that the case was dismissed for being moot, as I said it would

“So they did Hear the case,”
They didnt. They denied Certiorari

“I gave you the definition of “Hearing” – 2 times already.”
YEs. it was an excellent defnition.
Thank you very much for supplying it. You should read it as it says CLEARLY that a hearing is when evidence/arguments are presented before a judge. NOT when judges gater and decide whther to accept a case.
It is impossible to have read the definition and think “hearing” and conference are interchangeable

“And like you said -“and if you have any lingering questions I’ll of course gladly answer”!”

I Do!
Here’s what I find confusing.
You say the court “heard” the case.
Yet they denied Certiorari (do you argu on this fact as well?)

What would have happened if the court granted Certiorari. In other words LEts’ say Gorsuch , ALito and Thomas convinced 2 others that they should take the case.
Would would that mean? they agree to hear a case they already heard?

What do you think Granting Certiorari means?

Health
“Yes there is.”

As mentioned. At conference ONLY judges are present “According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc”
you can’t have a “proceeding before a judge” if there are only judges.

“They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”

This point was never in dispute. This is EXACTLY what happens. (there is no court case, there are no hearings) they read the motions and make decisions. Of course as you said some are read more than others as some may be more vague.

And I told you months ago they would deny Certioari
you called me a liar for my correct prediction

This is what we are arguing about
Yes youve stuck in dozens of wrong facts as well, that Ive explained to you. But don’t get distarcted from the original point

You say “They read the Motions and make decisions, like whether to Grant Certiorari or not.”
As if it is a chidush.
This is what Ive been telling you for months. Of course, I knew what they would decide, so I told you that too
you called me a liar, and Can’t grant that I didn’t lie even when time has proven me right
THAT is the argument

“Now they are interested in Oral Arguments and/or More Evidence, before any Judgment!”
At conference could they provide a ruling on the actual case. IE overrule or uphold the lower courts decision or are there limits on their “judgement” ?