Dismissed without prejudice means that they can amend the lawsuit and refile with the changes. Dismissed with prejudice means that the case is over.
Its almost worse than election night itself.
underrated comment
Great post. I haven't gone down as hard as you did, but I was teetering on mild depression. I get over it by remembering the ACTUAL interactions between regular people and me.
For instance, I get lunch at the drive thru of a local burger place usually every Monday. Over the past month or two, the same guy took my order (which is always the same, lol). Last week, he finished telling me my order for me, not even being able to see me. When I got up to the window, we laughed and I asked him his name. He gave it to me and, as I always do, I thanked him for the food and told him to have a nice day.
Today, I went back and said hello to him by name when I ordered. When I got up to the window, he informed me that the drink was free. I didn't ask for it, but thanked him. He is african-american and I am not. I drive a nice car and, because there are only two cars in the lot due to shutdowns, I know he does not.
Yet, despite our obvious differences, we respect each other and have friendly exchanges. THIS is real life. THIS is not the division that the media and dims want us to think is out there.
So, 'pede, good for you for reminding us about what it is all about. Hang in there and have a great day!
Cold. Hard. Anger.
One of these things is NOT like the others...
I think he meant they’re.
‘I don’t say what I can’t prove.” Release. The. Fucking. Kraken.
Stole a shirt 😂😂
How are the police not laughing hysterically?
Look at my head... pussy ass liberal scum
This is truly scary and should be stickied.
Link to him saying that?
That’s the equal protection argument the campaign is making. Strong argument.
And which means said votes should be invalid.
I think that’s correct.
Also, just need majority of three to throw it out, not all three.
I mean just look at him...
Two things: this is already in federal court, not state court; don’t need all three, just two out of three.
Your analysis is wrong. You stated that if any one of the three determine it is invalid... however under the agreement, 2 out of three (majority) must determine it is bad in order to throw it out. Much different standard and, therefore, better court argument then what you stated.
While in break, as an attorney, I can say great job OP. Keep it up.