Lawsuit filed by conspiracy nuts against DNC is dismissed.

[Jim Lane]

66. Your understanding of legal terminology is incorrect

When a court says that a particular claim is not cognizable, that doesn't mean "this claim is obvious bullshit but I'm feeling nice today so I'll word it more politely." The polite legal terms for bullshit are "without merit" or, in a phrase a judge once used about one of my arguments, "borders on the frivolous." (BTW, he was right, but it was the only argument we had.)

On the other hand, "cognizable" is a specific legal concept. A claim may be meritorious and yet not be cognizable in a particular court or under a particular statute.

In this thread and in the one started by stevebreeze, I've spent a lot of time trying to explain the law to people who were drawing unjustified conclusions from Judge Zloch's decision. For example, in this thread, there's a long subthread in which DanTex (who shares your low opinion of the plaintiffs) and I had a thoughtful exchange of views. By contrast, some of the criticism of the suit has consisted essentially of one-liners and smilies. I'm not willing to do more unpaid legal work to respond to posts of that kind. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.