[mlo]

"Thanks for weighing in. For the benefit of lurkers, those of us who’ve been following the CertifiGate issue have noticed a lot of CoLB trolls such as mlo. They never seem to answer the question of why the SCOTUS has forwarded this issue 5 times for conference rather than just deny it outright. Back to your regularly scheduled trolling."

For the benefit of lurkers, people who can't win an argument tend to rely on name calling.

You haven't asked me that question. It has been answered though. The court is following the quickest procedure in denying these cases. This is what denying them looks like.

A case is submitted to one justice. He denies it. It can then be submitted to another justice. That justice, to prevent it from being sent to each justice in succesion, schedules it for conference where they all deny it, and that's the end. Going to conference says nothing about the merits or the chances.

[Kevmo]

The court is following the quickest procedure in denying these cases.
***Nope. Denying them is the quickest procedure. Forwarding them for conference is the most roundabout way of denying them.

This is what denying them looks like.
***And our resident constitutional scholar disagrees with you, saying that this issue has beaten all kinds of odds stacked up against it.

A case is submitted to one justice. He denies it. It can then be submitted to another justice. That justice, to prevent it from being sent to each justice in succesion, schedules it for conference where they all deny it, and that’s the end. Going to conference says nothing about the merits or the chances.
***Take that up with Billybob, who called my approach “a good analysis”. Now... does that mean you’ll give up this line of reasoning? Or are you going to just gloss over it because you don’t like what is said? Which is it going to be? What would a troll do? What would an honorable FReeper do?