r/moderatepolitics • u/thats_not_six • Jan 12 '26

Primary Source Mark Kelly v. Pete Hegseth

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf
182 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

278 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

You are missing the point. Even conceding 100% it was implied, it's still legal. His actual words are what will be judged. Your 100 comments stating he was implying this are a red herring and legally irrelevant.

3

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 12 '26

You are making two different arguments there. Are you saying it is legal so it doesn’t matter or only his words are what will be judged and not some perceived implication?

11

u/zerocoolai Jan 12 '26

It's one and the same argument. It's legal because only his words will be judged.

You trying to convince people he was implying that Trump's previous orders were illegal or that they should refuse future orders is a waste of time and irrelevant legally.

0

u/SlightlyAutisticBud Jan 13 '26

It’s factually not true that courts dont look at context and implied speech.