Posted on 12/15/2008 7:29:47 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Some are longtime posters. It could be for a variety of reasons, cynicism, enjoyment of others discomfort, even just sheer enjoyment of arguing.
You might want to consider, from “A REPORTER’S GUIDE
TO APPLICATIONS Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States”, on page 4:
There are several possible scenarios for the disposition
of an application:
• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.
• If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
a majority of the Court has denied the application. In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
See link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
I can’t understand why the lengthy arguments here and in the courts.
Why doesn’t 0bama submit the darn “legitimate document” and get it over with? Why don’t the courts compel him or even “ask” him to submit it? What is so complicated about this?
Unless, of course, the document doesn’t exist and zero can’t produce a “passable” forgery!
The courts need to be petitioned properly in order to request his birth records. And I really think that Obama isn’t eligible to be Potus. So he’ll continue to fight it.
ofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s arguments are not Constitutional in even the slightest definition.
***Bull Shiite.
That a right-leaning USSC is laughing these arguments out of court as quickly as they are filed tends to validate my viewpoint.
***Your definition of right-leaning is laughable. The Kelo decision would never have come from a right-leaning court.
So what are you doing on a constitutionalist website pushing unconstitutional arguments that have never been a part of U.S. legal tradition?
***20th amendment IS part of the US legal tradition. Or do you not believe in that document called the constitution?
Or do you believe in the “living, breathing” Constitution?
***No. It sure sounds like you do. What is your motivation? Why do you bring up legal tradition when the issue is constitutionality? Why do you insist on using distorted arguments? If your case were so FReeping firm, you could just argue straight from the facts without the telltale distortion of a troll.
obumpa
“Murdoch’s Time of London and Aussie papers are also liberal. He is out for money and power. His second young wife is chinese and all Murdoch cares about is keeping his Sky Tv on in China. His new wife built a rift with his kids and I think his kids are probably pretty decent.”
The Australian, which is owned by News Corp., is the only decent paper here. Actually, the Daily Telegraph, also owned by News, although more of a tabloid, is also quite good sometimes. Certainly, both of them are quite willing to take on the global warming lunatics and you can’t say that about many papers. Come to think of it, the Wall Street Journal also has some really good climate articles at times. You’ve got to take the positives where you can get them.
“Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s arguments are not Constitutional in even the slightest definition. That a right-leaning USSC is laughing these arguments out of court as quickly as they are filed tends to validate my viewpoint.”
I wouldn’t call sending them both to conference laughing them out of court.
WSJ has gone downhill since Murdoch bought it. Today they had Soros kid in a editorial talking about how he and his daddy and their thugs are planning to scrap the electorial college. He gloated on how HI, MD, IL and NJ had already done it. All wonderful one party states. Scotus appears to be indifferent to what is going on.
I thought the UK Telegraph and Daily Mail were owned by the barclay brothers of Sark in the Channel Islands. The Daily Mail is good and the Telegraph was better.
Drew68 is another keyboard commando and suspect OBot.
Drew 68 and Star Traveller are obot travellers. Star tarveller was warned about his obot Spam by the moderator in another thread.
“I thought the UK Telegraph and Daily Mail were owned by the barclay brothers of Sark in the Channel Islands. The Daily Mail is good and the Telegraph was better.”
I was talking about Australian papers only. The Daily Telegraph I mentioned is in Sydney.
I hear ya.
I’m just wondering about what goes on when the SCOTUS convene privately. Wouldn’t one of them ask why 0bama isn’t complying with a very simple request that any of us is capable of doing in 5 minutes?
Many outfits ask for identification, we comply and produce what they want to see, no questions asked or egos hurt! We never fight it.
The first thing that he signs or his first executive order to dismantle something will be challenged in court and he’ll have to produce his CB. The question is; would the court let a panel of experts examine it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.