That's been a pretty accurate description of their record to date.
The judicial branch of the federal government fears to exercise its power, as it feared to exercise its power in the Bill Clinton perjury, obstruction of justice and witness tampering felonies.
Just because they laugh your cases out of court doesn't mean they fear to exercise their power. If they did that then we wouldn't have half the problem decisions we've had to date.
You have to remember that the Taney court's fear of dealing with the slavery issue was a major cause of the bloodshed of the Civil War.
I have heard the Dred Scott decision described in many ways, but 'fear of dealing with slavery' isn't one of them. The Scott v. Sanford decision opened up slavery to territories where federal law had forbidden it, denied blacks citizenship or any rights, and followed Taney's conviction that slavery was right and proper throughout the country. Taney wasn't interested in limiting slavery, he certainly didn't act out of fear
Ol' sinkie - he ALWAYS had the ready comeback in defense of government tyranny and skulduggery.
Skullduggery? You can put the whole skulduggery issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama isn't a natural born citizen. But you can't.
You can put the whole issue to rest by providing solid evidence that Obama is a natural born citizen. But you can’t.
(fixed it for you.)
You have repeatedly stated this backwards. The responsibility is on the applicant to prove he is qualifed. In this case, it is more evident when the applicant controls the access to the source document to prove that he is or isn’t qualified. How would I priove he is not qualified when he is restricting my access to the evidence?