Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: parsifal; edge919; mlo; Non-Sequitur; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; EnderWiggins; ...

> I’m sorry, are you better at reading Wong, than a judge?

Yes ... I am saying that! Save your Liberal, new-age, Progressive sanctimonious “Judges don't get it wrong” crap for someone else who just fell off the turnip truck and doesn't know any better!

To put it bluntly, judges f*ck up all the time! Just look at now-Justice Sotomayor — several of her cases were reversed BY the SCOTUS before she was kicked upstairs TO the SCOTUS by Barry Soetoro. Incorrect Judicial opinions are the very basis of our Appeals process. One does NOT even need a law degree to KNOW that Sotomayor's decision regarding preferential treatment of Black firemen over White firemen was FLAWED!!

And do you really want to have a legal debate about Roe v Wade and how misinterpretation of the law led to that screwed up SCOTUS Opinion?! Laws which govern such issues should be determined at the State level, and ANY SCOTUS Court should know this!

A twist of an old legal saying is that interpretation is nine-tenths of the law.” As such, I assume you also know that SCOTUS judgments HAVE been reversed by later SCOTUS Courts. The first case that pops into my head is Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, which was overturned by the 14th Amendment and, in part, by the Slaughter-House Cases in 1873. There are other examples of SCOTUS reversals in SCOTUS Court history.

In more modern times, the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS Opinion — regarding handguns in Washington DC — politely suggested that the 1939 United States v. Miller SCOTUS Opinion was incomplete and poorly written, leading subsequent lower court judges to “overread” Miller's findings. That led to nearly 70 years of laws and misinterpreted lower court rulings that improperly curtailed the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans!


So, yes, I'm also saying that YOU and all of the other After-Birthers are GUILTY of “overreading” and misapplying Wong Kim Ark v US in the same manner! That 1898 SCOTUS Opinion was NEVER intended to determine Presidential Eligibility in the eyes of our Framers — a FACT that you After-Birthers KNOW to be true, but just choose to ignore!


Now ... have another banana, monkey-boy!



1,955 posted on 02/27/2010 10:49:33 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1909 | View Replies ]


To: BP2

But, when court after court comes to the same conclusion, you gotta kinda figure they’re getting it right. Which is what really gets your goat, or monkey, whatever. I read somewhere Wong has been cited like 1,000 times. It is still good law.

parsy, who says the monkey pictures are the best part of your logic!


1,958 posted on 02/27/2010 11:13:42 PM PST by parsifal (Abatis: Rubbish in front of a fort, to prevent the rubbish outside from molesting the rubbish inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1955 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson