If the answer to what the OP said is “I didn’t mean literally ZERO input,” that’s fine I guess, and would be good enough for me, as I’m not a mind reader and not interested in arguing with people over what they meant. But they haven’t responded to me with that, so not sure why I need to engage in this exercise about…

Fuck!  I hate, just absolutely hate, ignoring salient points. Can you please point out the salient points I am ignoring?  I will be so embarrassed, I’m sure. 

The exact opposite? By his own admission, he told them NOT to serve her at her primary residence, and suggested two public places they SHOULD serve her, I gotta admit to needing a little more explanation about how their actual method of service was “the exact opposite” of what he requested.  

Semantics? It’s a factual assertion that’s incorrect. Sudeikis can certainly be defended here (after all, she had to be served SOMEWHERE, and getting served is never pleasant, and is not meant to be).

This is such a weird take! It’s like if I tell give someone directions to my house, and say “Don’t take the highway” and they get here and say “I had to take a bunch of crazy backroads to get to you” and you were like “Not my fault, I didn’t tell you to take the back roads.”  When you tell someone how not to do…

First, he said places he thought she should be served.  Second, if you dictate where she can’t be served, that has an influence on where she eventually is served, especially when the places you say not to serve her are the most obvious places where she would be found.

What could otherwise be the implications of OPs post?  I honestly am asking, because the remedy to the problem he has seems to be people being willing to interact with this guy socially (since that is what is at issue here).

The only input Sudeikis had was asking that she be served where he thought she could be found (the airport or at her hotel), neither of which were meant to be public.

Voluntary tethering yourself to the hateful, anti-woman, pedophile-defending, Catholic Church in the year of our lord 2022 is….a choice. 

As was established by Sudeikis himself, who admitted exerting some control over how she was served, Sudeikis actually did have some control about how she was served! Like, he admitted to having some control, using words and his own name and everything! The “better informed” commenters who said he would have had no…

“it wasn’t his fault’

it would have blunted Dems momentum by pissing off the conservatives and giving them a rallying cry going into midterms.

How would it have blunted Dems momentum?  Also interesting how your second sentence immediately surfaces the exact criticism many of us are lodging at this. Sorry your pony wasn’t pretty enough cupcake!

I guess we know now why he wanted more kids around so badly.

What I said about her conduct: “unacceptable”

I mean, other than the fact that both relationships apparently involved infidelity, I’m not sure that the two situations really share enough in common to be able to say there is some inconsistency there.  Unless, I guess, you think being cheating on someone in a relationship means you can never complain about how that…

So the Supreme Court is prepared to rule that a state can arbitrarily condemn women to death, and doing so is not a violation of any aspect of the due process clause of either the 5th or 14th Amendment. Sure, makes sense to me.

It can “count” and still not be appropriate for her to be arrested and thrown in jail for it. She can be wrong for hitting him and he can be wrong for cheating on her. I also think the point about her breastfeeding was explicitly NOT tied to her responsibility for physical assault, but tied to whether she should be…

Of course! What pathetic piece of shit calls the cops on his wife and the mother of his infant child, while she is taking care of that child, because she reacted in an understandable, if unacceptable, after finding out he just blew up her entire life.  This guy is a fucking asshole whose musical imitation of Jack…

Okay, but by your own reckoning it’s less of a “stalling tactic” than it is adding defendants (who happen to have deep pockets) who might actually have some personal responsibility and legal liability, since typically someone’s employer cannot be held liable for their employee’s off duty criminal behavior.  It’s a…