Posted on 01/28/2009 6:17:15 AM PST by dascallie
It's not considered an ex parte meeting if they didn't discuss the case. See the link above to Scalia's opinion on his hunting trip with Cheney.
Who called the meeting?
Chief Justice Roberts.
Was there precedent for the meeting?
Yes-- both Reagan and Clinton met with the Supreme Court shortly before they were sworn in.
“The joint chiefs should inform the politicians who has all the guns, jets, ships, and armed forces at their disposal...as they will defend the constitution”
How I wish Petraeus and the rest of the boys would explain to that little girly man up close and personal “how the cow ate the cabbage,” as we used to say in the South. They wouldn’t have to threaten—just give him a reality check.
There were no recorded dissents from any of the denials.
“the appearance of fraud is proof of fraud”.
I like that better than “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.”
Wasn’t it Justice Potter Stewart who said (in reference to pornography), “I know it when I see it?” I think that’s fairly applicable to what some of us have concluded about Barry’s suspicious behavior concerning his closely past.
Scalia hunting previously with Cheney was not an ex parte issue:
Scalia refused, however, to recuse himself in the case of Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a case dealing with the right of the Vice-President to keep secret the membership of an advisory task force on energy policy. Scalia was asked to recuse because he had previously gone on a hunting trip with various persons including Cheney; Scalia refused, and took the relatively uncommon step of defending his refusal to recuse himself from the case with a public memorandum, focusing on the distinction between official capacity and personal capacity suits, and concluding that because Vice President Cheney was sued in his official capacity, any personal relationship that existed between the two men was irrelevant to Scalia’s ability to render an impartial judgment. “I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” concluded Scalia.[60][not in citation given] Scalia, concurring with the majority, supported Cheney’s position in the case.
The Obama booster at work giving probing questions and answers.
“You must be an lawyer,,the way you parse words.”
Brother, you took the words right out of my mouth! It strikes me that most of the obfuscators who post on eligibility threads conduct themselves like lawyers, demanding courtroom-level proof of everything. We aren’t in court—common sense rules at FR!!
The fact that so many of them talk and act that way and appear as soon as an eligibilty thread is posted makes me extremely suspicious. If it isn’t an organized effort—or perhaps one person using more than one screen name—it sure looks like one! I’m retired and a very avid follower of the eligibility issue but even I lack the time to be “Johnny on the Spot” like some of these posters!
Don’t you know it. People who believe in that piece of garbage on Factcheck probably believe in the Rathergate Bush National Guard papers too. Curious that the same expert has debunked them both.
The only value in posting junk like that is to prove that one is born every minute!
That’s what I’ve been suspecting too. Two, three, even four of the Justices might see the merit of the eligibility cases but the rest are hardheadedly against hearing them. So what can the conservatives do if they feel that way?
It’s quacking and waddling and so far, water seems to run off its back.
Like the plans to create and proffer a bogus Certification of Live Birth:
Or, the plans to suppress his birth certificate release:
And, the plans to suppress the release of all other records:
Glad you clarified that.
My pleasure...
There are some on FR who are thinking (hoping!) that possibly SCOTUS is waiting for the right case, and maybe the right time. In a month or two when even more of 0’s shine has dulled (looking more like s**t and less like shinola), and 0bama has been nastier to reporters, more Globe issues have raised doubts, and so on - it might be easier to render a decision against him.
No evidence that I’ve seen, just informed speculation no doubt colored by hopes.
If Justice Thomas is in on the fix then I'm going to cry in my beer. After that I don't know what.
Well, if the story that Justice Thomas snoozed through the inauguration is true, then maybe he was sending constitutionalists a message. He is the last person I’d suspect of selling out!
It is valid to question Obama’s eligibility for office. Surprising little is known about the man who just today invoked the “sunlight is the best dininfectant” line. I have many questions about Obama’s past.
But assuming the fix is in on the SCOTUS based on nothing more than a meeting (even if unprecedented) is what feeds stereotype of conservatives being right wing nuts. It is the type of thing which keeps many from taking us seriously.
Not slamming anyone else for what they believe, just my opinion.
But assuming the fix is in on the SCOTUS based on nothing more than a meeting (even if unprecedented) is what feeds stereotype of conservatives being right wing nuts. It is the type of thing which keeps many from taking us seriously.
______
And the fact that the meeting was not unprecedented should give the conspiracy theorists a bit of a pause, but it doesn’t seem to do so.
You said — “You have some proof that they met legally for illegal purposes or illegally met for legal purposes? Your proof of a conspiracy requires proof of the statement above. And we have none.”
Now, come on..., don’t start talking common sense to the Obama Derangement Syndrome mentality... :-)
You said — “Nonsense. He won an election.”
Ummmm..., it was rigged; the Republicans really won! [ /Obama Derangement Syndrome off]
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.