Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama
AP via SFGate ^ | 12/17/8

Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-417 next last
To: devere

You said — “Speaking for myself, I do not believe any story that has “AP” on it. It needs corroboration.”

I’ve got two words for that... paranoid, denial... and that might sum up the position of many on this issue... LOL...


41 posted on 12/17/2008 9:54:30 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

If there is one.


42 posted on 12/17/2008 9:55:02 AM PST by null and void (Hey 0bama? There will be a pop quiz every day for the next four years...miss a question, people die.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer
maybe the next presidential election it will

This will only be addressed when there is a question about a REPUBLICAN candidate's qualifications.

43 posted on 12/17/2008 9:55:14 AM PST by MrB (The 0bamanation: Marxism, Infanticide, Appeasement, Depression, Thuggery, and Censorship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"without comment"

Justice Kennedy - - now there's a guy with a spine of steel.

44 posted on 12/17/2008 9:56:08 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
The *real problem* is not over, though, and that will require putting laws on the books of the various states to vet candidates as to whether they are qualified under the Constitution and not allow them to be legally placed on the ballot without that proof.

OK then. I'm going to ask the next "next question". What if the several states start to amend their election law -- some will. What if in 4 years Obama cannot run for re-election because of ballot access problems due to his inability to prove N-B citizenship to the satisfaction of 5 or 6 states? Imagine the brouhaha then?

45 posted on 12/17/2008 9:56:53 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

HEHEHEH. Not us. Not here.


46 posted on 12/17/2008 9:57:04 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

I realize we are all just paranoid kooks, so please forgive my stupidity, but could you please Mr. All Knowing, provide we kooks with your proof of his Hawaiian birth? Consider it a Christmas present to we lowly peons.

Thanks.


47 posted on 12/17/2008 9:57:09 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MrB

True - if this president was a Republican you better believe that the MSM would be digging on this ... there would be 30 “media investigative” reporters in Hawaii ...


48 posted on 12/17/2008 9:57:37 AM PST by SkyDancer ("Talent Without Ambition Is Sad, Ambition Without Talent Is Worse")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler; LS
You said — “Or, there could genuinely be nothing to this stuff, as many of us have said for some time. Nahh, that couldn’t be it. USSC has to be corrupt.”


LOL..., you couldn’t be talking about genuine FReepers being considered kooks or conspiracy minded, could you? :-)


Exactly, "he said" because that's the pathetic intellectually dishonest means of debate you geniuses use.
49 posted on 12/17/2008 9:58:01 AM PST by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

“They lack courage” is always a nice fallback. Never can be that there is no substance to a charge. “Lacking courage” is corruption, BTW.


50 posted on 12/17/2008 9:58:02 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Barack Helmsley Obama says: "We don't show documents. Only the little people have to show documents."

(Leona "Queen of Mean" Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.")

51 posted on 12/17/2008 9:58:43 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missnry

So far, not one single official body, including a Republican governor and five Republican USSC justices, has agreed with you.


52 posted on 12/17/2008 9:58:51 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: battletank

You don’t even take a case that has no merit. Merely to take it gives it credibility.


53 posted on 12/17/2008 9:59:29 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SVTCobra03

bump.


54 posted on 12/17/2008 9:59:49 AM PST by Sparko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

You said — “The problem is - it won’t do any good now ... maybe the next presidential election it will ....”

And that clarifies the “real nature of the problem” ...

You see..., if someone doesn’t care about taking care of it for the future and most of their energy is expended on getting Obama out of office, then they never did care about the “problem” in the first place. The problem is not Obama, it’s the “process” by which Obama got in there. *That* is the problem.

On the other hand, if someone attack the “real problem” as not having anything to do with Obama and having *entirely* to do with a process that has been discovered to be deficient — then — this is the constructive solution to the problem (i.e., the state laws to that effect).

We can tell how many are really interested in *only* Obama versus interested in “the problem” (of the process which is deficient)...


55 posted on 12/17/2008 10:00:03 AM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

If it is, it is profoundly disturbing. But the course has not yet fully run.

Someone who can match Soros needs to do some investigating of the leads that exist.

Where is Ross the hoss when the nation needs him?


56 posted on 12/17/2008 10:00:34 AM PST by AmericanVictory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LS

Maybe you can help? Please inform the rest of us how you know there is no substance to the charge? Obviously, you have proof that others of us have missed.

If not, the fact is that there are a zillion swirling honest questions with no proof to be found. Some of us seemingly care more about upholding the Constitution than others. Apparently.


57 posted on 12/17/2008 10:00:37 AM PST by battletank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
No, the pathetic dishonesty is each time "your position" loses to claim that the other side is either a) gutless, b) corrupt c) stupid.

I predicted last week when the USSC kicked these cases out the next line of attack would be the corrupt/gutless/stupid USSC.

58 posted on 12/17/2008 10:01:02 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jerod
it would have been looked at by the Justices.Why do you say that? Four of them voted against the plain meaning of the Second Ammendmnet. Two of them have used foreign laws to justify liberal rulings in the last few years. There are not a solid majority of non-treasonous justices on the SC at this time. It is 4 to 4 with a confused little man in the middle. It is the confused little many who issued these rulings, which I take to mean he is the "swing vote" deciding not to get into this. The SC not picking up a case doesn't mean anything concerning the merits of the case, particularly when it hasn't been heard at any other level. Not one court has bothered to do anything excpet push these aside with procedurals. But the proponents of the "Barry is American" twist this. "The plantiff does not have standing" some how magically equals "Barry was Born in America". Uh, NO. It doesn't. No amount of you, MS-NBC and the AP insisting it does can make that logical leap-of-induction true.
59 posted on 12/17/2008 10:01:33 AM PST by Jack Black (ping can't be a tag line, can it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: battletank

It’s not my burden of proof. It’s the plaintiff’s burden of proof, and clearly he didn’t meet it.


60 posted on 12/17/2008 10:01:50 AM PST by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401-417 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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