SCOTUS message to the American people

Learn USA ^ | 01/20/2009 | Lynn M Stuter

[little jeremiah]

If this is true, then the Tree of Liberty is in dire need of watering.

Seems as though all the suits in DC are empty. Either eunuchs or evil.

[seekthetruth]

My hope for SCOTUS to do the right thing and hear the cases is dwindling fast. Many think they are waiting for the right case to present itself so there will be no doubt that the full truth will come out.

Wish I could say that I still have great hope in SCOTUS. I still can not imagine Justice Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts letting this issue go unanswered. If Monday brings no comments from SCOTUS on the Orley case, I will know they are turning their backs on our Constitution.

[Calpernia]

If DC thinks a cover up won’t create civil unrest, they are in for a sad awakening.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I see the “loophole factor” as being involved.

Think of it from a criminal case perspective. Years ago, say a law was passed that nobody ever broke. Nobody even got around to deciding whose job it was to enforce the law. Then finally somebody breaks the law. In a criminal case, while yes, it is the law, few judges are going to convict, or even try, somebody for breaking it, if nobody even has been determined to be in charge of enforcing the law.

But all hope is not lost. While Obama is going to get over—once—at some point the Supreme Court is going to tell congress that they had better legislatively pass an exception, or there is no way in hell they will let Obama run for re-election, if it comes to that. With a congressional exception that they declare him to be naturally born American, no problem.

More importantly, the SCOTUS will give fair warning to the political parties that they had better vet the heck out of future candidates so this doesn’t happen again. That’s what they are doing right now—crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.

Yes, this time, the courts let the bank robber walk because of a loophole in the law. But don’t do it again, or else.

[unspun]

It was a fraudulent election. There is nothing retroactive. We have someone who refuses to prove he is eligble, who raised hundreds of millions from unknown and possibly offshore sources, who has already signed orders that could benefit Islamic terrorists.

Right. It must be emphasized that John Jay's intent about this is not about presidential elections, per se. It is about making sure that anyone who serves as Commander in Chief is a natural born Citizen and without foreign allegiance.

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

[CaptRon]

You are correct. It was 7-2.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The invitation of Chief Justice Roberts, the behind closed door meeting with a man who is the subject of lawsuits coming before the Supreme Court concerning his eligibility to the office of president, was not only inappropriate but leaves questionable the judicial conduct of the justices with whom AKA and Biden met.

Has everybody forgotten the time that Scalia and Cheney went hunting while the Supreme Court was deliberating a case against Cheney? What is illegal is for a judge to talk to a party about the case.

Seeing as-- unlike Bush v. Gore-- the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any case against Obama, I'm sure whatever Obama and the Justices talked about, it wasn't the cases against Obama.

[Lurking Libertarian]

What if the Chief Justice told the new President - either produce a birth certificate or you’re out of office.

Meeting with Obama is not illegal. Talking to him about his birth certificate would have been illegal. I'm sure Roberts did not hand Obama the grounds to have Roberts impeached.

[Political Junkie Too]

They probably think that Conservatives, by their conservative nature, won't riot like liberals would, by their activist nature.

That's why Conservatives stay home while Liberals bus people all over.

-PJ

[Calpernia]

No, conservatives won’t riot like liberals. But they aren’t staying home either.

[Quix]

Watering

my foot.

Quick, grab some seeds from the fire and replant them in a guarded secret location

QUICK!

[little jeremiah]

Usually the roots will revive, if the tree be strong...

[Quix]

There is that, alright.

Strong?

. . . good question.

[Danae]

“But don’t do it again”’

Yea I will make note of that. I am sure that will prevent further deliberate violations of the constitution in the future.

[Red Steel]

Actually, I believe the critical part of the case on the 2000 election was 7 to 2 or 6-3.

Always bears repeating to the libs 7 - 2.

[MHGinTN]

It might be a popular belief, but it is not workable ... the first legitimate lawsuit over a bill or EO Barry signs into law will end the stonewalling. You would think a subpreme court judge would know that ... but then we’re talking about Roberts the rube.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I agree it stinks. But it is the way the court works, especially when dealing with the president and presidency.

In all practical ways, the president is above the law, and the court treats him as such. The SCOTUS is still reeling from when FDR threatened to pack and dilute them, and remain to a great extent a 19th Century institution. And a timid one at that.

[MHGinTN]

You really want to try to sell this fib given your posting history at FR?... “Our guy lost period.” Bwahahahahaha

[Polarik]

The skinny in DC is that Barry’s Real Immigration status is going to be covered up. Official and unofficial DC considers having an unconstitutional President LESS dangerous than the civil unrest throwing his worthless ass out on to the curb where it belongs.

He cannot be covered up - not when Obama is making such a big deal about NOT covering up what Presidents have done. Let s push this "transparency" of his as far as it will go.

Which is worse: civil arrest or a major terrorist attack that's coming in six months?

[Polarik]

It might be a popular belief, but it is not workable ... the first legitimate lawsuit over a bill or EO Barry signs into law will end the stonewalling. You would think a subpreme court judge would know that ... but then we’re talking about Roberts the rube.

I concur. Bambi will resign once it reaches critical mass.