Texas SC validates invalid petition

[Stratego]

The petition was validated and people thought they were going to get a vote. The only "proof" of forgery was that a jury decided that there were, but not anything definitive.

At this point the Supreme Court has could agree with the jury and throw out the petition and not grant any vote. But if the jury was wrong, they'd have effectively allow a law to pass without a vote. However, if the jury was right and there were actually forgeries, the worst thing that could happen is that there will be a vote.

[uebermann]

[Stratego]

You're saying "the end justifies the mean" as if it's a bad thing.

You're also taking the note that there were forged signatures as absolute Bible, when it's possible that the jury and judge was wrong.

You're coming from it from the position that the jury is 100% right and therefore the law as is written must be followed.

[uebermann]

[phosphide]

I don't think this has anything to do with "F U homos". That's a completely baseless and naive assertion.

Here is their ruling: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1047360/140667.pdf

Here is the important part: "The mere existence of the City’s challenge to the petition does not negate the City Council’s duty to proceed with the political process unless that obligation is stayed by a court of competent jurisdiction."

Assuming I'm reading this correctly, the reason why the "judge and jury" was ignored was because the city council failed to do what was required of them long before that ever occurred. The city secretary approved the initial petition, meaning the city council was required to repeal the law or send it to a vote. The city attorney, who doesn't have any legal grounds, decided the petition was invalid. The city council took the findings of the city attorney and completely ignored the city secretary (which violates the law). That's why the court intervened and said the city council was required to repeal or put to a vote, because it's what they were supposed to do in the first place.

[uebermann]

[spacemonkey]

The law says you have to like people you might not like, like it or not. Maybe it should be "tolerate" people you might not normally tolerate. Personally, I don't care. To each their own.

[phosphide]

[Stratego]

[Medius]