charonn0
Which US laws are you talking about?
I'm referring to the lawsuit itself. It may be "very real", but it's also complete nonsense.
US courts don't rule on political questions, nor do they decide US foreign policy, nor do they provide advisory opinions. This lawsuit fails to state a cognizable claim and seeks relief that is beyond the power of the judiciary to grant.
Even in 2016 it was obvious what kind of person he was. His "good" supporters claimed that being President would change him for the better. We all knew then that they were wrong. We all know now that they were lying.
Well, let's see, the lawsuit was filed in the United States, in a US court, and under US laws.
So, obviously, I'm talking about Outer Mongolia.
Have you actually read this lawsuit? It asks for things that US courts simply cannot do.
That's not how the courts work here.
I just thought "pirate-friendly" was concise.
tl;dr: The users' comments say that a certain ISP is pirate-friendly. Studios want to use the comments against the ISP (not the users).
That is not a distinction actually made by section 3. Oath breakers are disqualified, not rebels per se.
There are probably good arguments why qualification for a federal office isn’t properly decided by a state judge or official.
State elections officials already do that for things like age, residency requirements, etc. It's part of federalism that the state governments administer federal elections.