1449
posted ago by Granny ago by Granny +1455 / -6

Obviously!!! He was arguing with the other Justices not to take the Texas case. Because there would be riots. Why?

He wasn't anticipating riots just because they hear the case. Riots would only be expected if Texas WON their case. I can't see it any other way, can you???

Comments (32)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
3
Abovethefray 3 points ago +3 / -0

Excellent analysis. It does seem obvious now, doesn't it?

3
Granny [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I know! It struck me like a bolt of lightning yesterday, and I thought it was an important point that we were overlooking. So I decided to put it out there today!