3557
Comments (1582)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
3
GingerMinky 3 points ago +5 / -2

This is very normal. If you read transcripts, this is how they argue. They make you defend your position.

6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
3
GingerMinky 3 points ago +3 / -0

There was some of that, but for the most part, appeals courts make you argue against your opponent, but it is done through the judges. It's different. It isn't like the court you think you are used to.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
GingerMinky 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’d tell you to listen to more hearings. They’re designed to be professionally adversarial. There was some BS, but not as much as I think everyone thinks.

1
The_Sentinel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Catching up to this very late. I totally agree with you.

These bastard Neolib judges were simply fishing. One of them was going on and on about a "hypothetical".

It was all a trap and they were trying to trip Sidney up in order to bury her.

Sidney is just TREMENDOUS!