Posted on 12/15/2008 7:29:47 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
PING.
GREAT WE CAN IGNORE THE 16TH AMENDMENT!
My mother is a court reporter (stenographer) for a federal judge in the 5th Circuit. These cases are considered sensationalism & fodder for lunchtime laughter. That would be why the MSM didn’t take them seriously - because the legal community didn’t.
I would love to be along in a room with these guys: “What are earth are you thinking?”
Welcome to FR. Good screen name!
In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.
It behooves every man to remember that the work of the critic is of altogether secondary importance, and that, in the end, progress is accomplished by the man who does things.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotion, spends himself in a worthy cause; who at best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who have never tasted victory or defeat.
These tears are not from laughter.
I am not sure where you are seeing that. The docket listed at the Supreme Court looks like this:
No. 08A469
Title: Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
v.
Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~
Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)
I guess the legal community think pissing on the Constitution is fun and fodder for lunchtime laughter.
But if the entire legal community feels that way, why did any of the SCOTUS justice even bring any cases to the conference? Seems they would have been denied that even.
Actually DC took them very seriously. These cases are a source of worry. There were several threads about it. The MSM didn’t cover them because Obama is their guy just as Clinton was.
A Supreme Court case is NOT something to be screwed up by petty errors and red herrings. Doubly so when the election of a President is on the line. So far SCOTUS has only addressed applications for stays of the Electoral College vote (which is today), not actual demands for the BC or resolution/definition of “natural born citizen” re: foreign-citizen parentage.
Should you ask SCOTUS “what on earth are you thinking?”, they would reply “give us a viable case and maybe we can do something with it!” So far, no truly viable case has reached them. They can’t just act independently on vague allegations.
Great quote. Thanks.
You could always try checking the posted links to the SC.
Follow the sub-thread back. The comment was about the Berg case, not Wrotnowski. See #15.
Constitution is dead as we know it. Thanks for the help Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. USSA only a matter of time.
BTW, I was reading on Leo’s blog last night something about the court clerk holding back briefs and something about a claim that white powder was in the brief envelope?? Does anyone know about that stuff?? Leo was kind of rambling about it and I could not find the start of the story.
Best analysis yet! Thanks for the clear statement.
Sadly, this BC non-controversy has shown us that we have plenty of howling moonbats on the right as well and posting here on Free Republic. Derangement Syndrome is the same disease regardless of who is afflicted.
The Constitution goes up in smoke but you decide to engage in a childish “I told you so.” Pathetic.
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.