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

Skip to comments.

Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)
www.supremecourt.gov ^ | 11/08/2010 | SCOTUS

Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by rxsid

No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010

Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: apuzzo; birthcertificate; certifigate; eligibility; hussein; ineligible; kerchner; mario; marioapuzzo; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; treason; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 next last
How Can A Natural Born Citizen's Status Be "Governed" By Great Britian?
1 posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:41 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Ping!

"Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)"

2 posted on 11/08/2010 12:58:25 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

4 votes...


3 posted on 11/08/2010 12:59:29 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

does that mean the full court is going to discuss granting cert?


4 posted on 11/08/2010 12:59:29 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
tic.....tic.....tic.
5 posted on 11/08/2010 1:00:36 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 657 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

They’re just deciding how to say, “No”, again, with a straight face.


6 posted on 11/08/2010 1:01:10 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Yes, and if it goes further, Obama and the Dems would be laying bricks.


7 posted on 11/08/2010 1:02:03 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

When will we find out?

Black Friday?


8 posted on 11/08/2010 1:03:17 PM PST by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.

What does this really mean? You said above 4 votes. Did 4 of the Standing court justices vote to move it to Conference status?

Does that mean it goes on a list for a future hearing? Please explain to us Tea Party un-enlightended folks.


9 posted on 11/08/2010 1:04:44 PM PST by ncfool (The new USSA - United Socialst States of AmeriKa. Welcome to Obummers world or Obamaville USSA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide

Obama has amended the US Constitution without the legal process.


10 posted on 11/08/2010 1:05:37 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ncfool
What does this really mean? You said above 4 votes. Did 4 of the Standing court justices vote to move it to Conference status?

The answer is no for cases to go to conference.

It takes four of the SCOTUS critters to vote yes to hear the case.

11 posted on 11/08/2010 1:09:55 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
When will Obama resign?

The days grow short.

12 posted on 11/08/2010 1:11:51 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("Government has no other end, but the preservation of property." --John Locke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This is starting to get interesting...


13 posted on 11/08/2010 1:13:03 PM PST by WAW (Which enumerated power?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

What happens if 2 of the SCOTUS justices have to recuse themselves because they were themselves appointed by the defendant in question?

Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?


14 posted on 11/08/2010 1:13:14 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

So the waiver of right to respond means the federal government, or in this case, Barry’s lawyers, have granted every statement of fact in the filing, and has no right to counter any statement within it, nor counter the centori.

I’m seeing a split decision here, with the court likely finding that the option of citizenship is one that has to be exercised, and one’s American citizenship can’t be revoked by an outside authority, nor does having an option revoke citizenship. A joined majority will further declare that the SCOTUS is not the arbritor of presidential elections and toss the whole bomb into the lap of Congress.

A minority will likely feel that this is entirely a waste of time, and another minority will think that it is up to the Electoral College to verify documents before voting for president, and yet another minority (mixed) will encourage the release of the documents.


15 posted on 11/08/2010 1:14:08 PM PST by kingu (Favorite Sticker: Lost hope, and Obama took my change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Triple
does that mean the full court is going to discuss granting cert?

Every cert. petition filed with the Court is listed for a conference. There are often 100 or more cases listed for each conference. Not all are actually discussed; prior to the conference, each Justice privately circulates a list of cases that they think should be discussed. If a case is not listed by any of the 9 justices, it is not discussed and an order comes down saying the petition for cert. is denied. Those lists are not made public, so we have no way to know if a case is actually "discussed."

16 posted on 11/08/2010 1:15:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

thanks


17 posted on 11/08/2010 1:18:37 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kingu
So the waiver of right to respond means the federal government, or in this case, Barry’s lawyers, have granted every statement of fact in the filing, and has no right to counter any statement within it, nor counter the centori.

Not the way it works at the SCOTUS level. Filing an opposition is optional. Most petitions are not opposed (because only a tiny percentage are granted). If the Court is considering granting certiorari, and the respondent didn't file opposition, the Court will request a response before taking a vote.

18 posted on 11/08/2010 1:18:51 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Laying bricks like a hen lays eggs would serve them right, but I can also see some Dems cast out and bricklaying for the unions as ex-cons.


19 posted on 11/08/2010 1:19:03 PM PST by charlie72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

I don’t know if it would change the 4 votes needed if 2 of the SCOTUS jurists recuse themselves from the case. And I don’t think Sotomayor or Kagan can be made to remove themselves from the case.


20 posted on 11/08/2010 1:19:27 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
When will we find out? Black Friday?

If the Court grants certiorari, or requests that the Government respond to the Petition (which means they are thinking of possibly granting certiorari) that order will come down on November 23. If cert. is denied, that will be on a long list of orders issued the following MOnday.

21 posted on 11/08/2010 1:22:45 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

And you can bet they won’t!


22 posted on 11/08/2010 1:24:13 PM PST by null and void (We are now in day 657 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Can they be forced to recuse themselves?

At the SCOTUS level, each Justice makes the decision to recuse or not for himself/herself; there is no review by the rest of the Court.

Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?

Only via impeachment.

23 posted on 11/08/2010 1:25:23 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; Red Steel
"What happens if 2 of the SCOTUS justices have to recuse themselves because they were themselves appointed by the defendant in question?

Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?"

A great question. Definitely uncharted territory!

I would think that the 2 would be asked to recuse themselves, if they didn't do so voluntarily. Recall, as of 10/4/10, Kagan had already recused herself from 25 of the (then) 51 cases the court had accepted up till then due to a conflict of interest type situation.

IF they were recused, that would leave a strong balance of "conservative" leaning justices of 4, the "swing" vote with Kennedy who said he wasn't leaving the bench til Barry was out of office and then 2 "lib" justices.

The nomination of the 2 justices by the usurper may ultimately turn out to work against him.

24 posted on 11/08/2010 1:27:53 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion; rxsid; STARWISE

If two must recluse themselves, do they still need four votes or just three? Is it a majority of the justices qualified or the entire court?


25 posted on 11/08/2010 1:33:21 PM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

This case was filed before Obama was inaugurated. Was Kagan the person who processed the early stages of this case for the defendants?

I don’t know how she could NOT recuse herself.

If SCOTUS decides at the end of Nov to hear this case, can they stretch it out so it’s not decided until after the House is controlled by Repubs?

I just can’t get it out of my mind that Soros could have SCOTUS by the necks somehow and SCOTUS may thus refuse to ever hear a case rather than have to rule wrongly and set precedent with the decision.


26 posted on 11/08/2010 1:35:45 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; mlo; Kevmo

Agreed. Seems like you, me, mlo, and kevmo hashed out the insignificance of the phrase “Distributed for Conference” in great detail back during Donofrio’s and Wrotnoski’s pending cases.


27 posted on 11/08/2010 1:37:15 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
If two must recluse themselves, do they still need four votes or just three? Is it a majority of the justices qualified or the entire court?

No matter how many recusals there are, four votes are needed to grant cert. If cert. is granted, a majority of the sitting judges is all that is needed for a decision (e.g., if there are 2 recusals, 4 justices are a majority).

28 posted on 11/08/2010 1:40:01 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Maybe public pressure could be brought to bear on Kagan and Sotomayor. Can Kerchner himself do anything to suggest that they need to recuse themselves? I was just looking at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/comments-from-cdr-kerchner-re-kagan-now.html where they’re saying there isn’t just an APPEARANCE of a conflict, there is actually a clear-cut financial and personal interest.


29 posted on 11/08/2010 1:44:01 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
"Joe Kovacs of WorldNetDaily reports on August 4, 2010, that: :
“the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.

Here’s the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year. In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court. A simple search of the high court’s own website reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.

The fact Kagan handled these cases and is now Obama’s first choice for the high court is raising some eyebrows. “She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship,” notes WND reader Carl Jorgensen of Farmingdale, N.J. “He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course,” Jorgensen continued. “They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it?

...

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/126/727/Kagan_Blocked_Obama_Eligibility_Lawsuits.html

To say that she would have a major conflict of interest in any case regarding Barry's eligibility is a serious understatement.

It would be difficult for most clear thinking people to understand how Sotomayor could possible stay on such a case either...since her being there is a direct result of being nominated by the usurper himself.

30 posted on 11/08/2010 1:46:15 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
What happens if 2 of the SCOTUS justices have to recuse themselves because they were themselves appointed by the defendant in question?

It still takes 4 votes.

Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?

No and no.

31 posted on 11/08/2010 1:48:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year. In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court. A simple search of the high court’s own website reveals Kagan’s name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.

Very misleading the way that is worded. The Solicitor General's office never filed anything with the Supreme Court in any Obama eligibility case. Kagan's name "comes up" on the website only in the sense that the petitioners served their papers on the Soliciitor General's office, as they were required to do, but neither Kagan nor anyone in her her office ever responded.

32 posted on 11/08/2010 1:52:12 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Would the same people that are talking about Chief Justice Roberts’ investments being grounds for impeachment also consider these 2 gals’ failure to recuse themselves in a case with such a blatant, direct financial and personal conflict of interest impeachable offenses?

If Kagan actually carried out the government’s defense in the beginning stages of this very case, it would be a situation where somebody decides their own case. That’s how blatant it would be. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what would be?


33 posted on 11/08/2010 1:54:50 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

I saw an interview with Justice Thomas and he mentioned that the court kept finding excuses to avoid hearing and deciding this issue.

Maybe this is the one.....


34 posted on 11/08/2010 2:00:49 PM PST by Helotes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Wow. This particular case is against the US government. I wasn’t aware of the job description of the Solicitor General, but Wikipedia says this:

“The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General’s office also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General’s office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General’s office also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal.”

Seems to me that Kagan has a conflict of interest because she would have had (or did have?) the job of representing the US government AND because she only has her position on SCOTUS because Obama was allowed to illegally take office.

That’s 2 major conflicts of interest/ potential ethics violations if she doesn’t recuse herself, that would be just cause for potential discipline or disbarment of a regular judge. If I’m understanding correctly. Seems like the federal code of judicial ethics had something about that... Can’t remember whether it excluded SCOTUS justices from that Code of Ethics...


35 posted on 11/08/2010 2:02:40 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
If Kagan actually carried out the government’s defense in the beginning stages of this very case, it would be a situation where somebody decides their own case.

Since the case hasn't gotten before the Supreme Court yet then the Solicitor General wouldn't have been involved.

That’s how blatant it would be. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what would be?

All your wishful thinking won't change the fact that 4 justices still have to agree to hear the case. Kagan or no Kagan.

36 posted on 11/08/2010 2:03:09 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

what about the justices being slighted by Obummer at the State of the Union and they were forced to hear him criticize themselves. Will this have any bearing on the Courts decision. Does anyone know what happened about the previous president that was accussed of being born in Canada, and how did that work out. I cannot remember the name of the president, coolidge, harding or something like that from New York, ohio. there was a controvesy but it was poo pooped. the Congress may get this critter yet. The courts may say no standing. Really why no standing when the American People have elected the people whom appoint and confirm these idiots to the positions. they say we cannot remove them because of their lifelong appointments. I disagree - an appointment can be ended at the discretion of the people of America not the ignoramus’; that think they are infallible. Damn the Pope is not infallible, neither is Billy Graham. Both of these can be removed easily by the people.


37 posted on 11/08/2010 2:04:45 PM PST by hondact200 ( Lincoln Freed the Enslaved. Obama Enslaves the Free. Obama is Americas Greatest Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Helotes
Maybe this is the one.....

Similar cases have made it this far before and no further. Maybe Justice Thomas is a yes vote, maybe not. Regardless it takes four to hear it.

38 posted on 11/08/2010 2:07:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

The former president whom had a so called conflict of where he was born was Chester A Arthur 1881 - 1885. he was born in Vermont, some idiot claimed he was born in Ireland and others claimed he was born in Canada. his parents had immigrated from Canada. It was known that his grandmother was part Indian. Now wait a minute Obama is not the first president to be a minority it is Chester A. Arthur. Artur died in 1886 of kidney disease, he was not healthy throughout his administration. interesting. he was a republican


39 posted on 11/08/2010 2:18:25 PM PST by hondact200 ( Lincoln Freed the Enslaved. Obama Enslaves the Free. Obama is Americas Greatest Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hondact200
Your thinking of the original usurper. Chester Arthur.

It appears that the public "at large" was completely unaware of his eligibility problems when he was running for office as V.P., only to take office when the POTUS, James A. Garfield was killed in office.

Interestingly, before his death, Arthur ordered his papers (presumably that would show his father was not a citizen when he, C.A., was born) burned. [link to a PDF].

Chester Arthur was a usurper, like Barry, because his father was a British subject when he was born.

Oh how history repeats itself.

40 posted on 11/08/2010 2:18:58 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Should Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves, in your opinion? Why or why not?


41 posted on 11/08/2010 2:28:47 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
Should Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves, in your opinion? Why or why not?

No, because appointment to the court is not grounds for recusing. Should Alito or Scalia or Thomas recuse themselves because they're Republicans and therefore their impartiality could be called into question by the liberals?

42 posted on 11/08/2010 2:52:41 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Placemark.


43 posted on 11/08/2010 3:06:54 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Being appointed by a generic “Republican” is totally different than being appointed by the defendant in the case you’re hearing.

You don’t see the difference there? You don’t see the financial and personal conflict of interest for both Kagan and Sotomayor?


44 posted on 11/08/2010 3:33:28 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
You don’t see the difference there? You don’t see the financial and personal conflict of interest for both Kagan and Sotomayor?

No. I guess I don't have your imagination.

45 posted on 11/08/2010 3:40:46 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Obviously Kagan has already seen her own conflict by recusing herself in (at least) 25 cases so far. Will she be consistent? Will the “wise Latina?” We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.


46 posted on 11/08/2010 3:43:18 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The fact that you would call the very obvious financial conflict of interest a figment of my imagination speaks volumes about you.

If SCOTUS rules that Obama was never lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote, Kagan and Sotomayor will be thrown out by their ears and can kiss their paychecks and reputations good-bye.

If you can’t even see something as concrete and obvious as that, it’s pretty much pointless for me to try to point out anything to you.


47 posted on 11/08/2010 3:49:08 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; butterdezillion
No. I guess I don't have your imagination.

The question is did Kagan represent the government or Obama in one or the many other Supreme Court cases about Obama's eligibility when she was the United States Solicitor General?

48 posted on 11/08/2010 3:49:45 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rxsid
Obviously Kagan has already seen her own conflict by recusing herself in (at least) 25 cases so far. Will she be consistent?

Kagan has recused herself from hearing every case in which she did legal work for the Government. The Solicitor General's office has apparently done no work in any of the Obama eligibility cases-- they have never filed anything with the Court in this case or any of the prior ones.

Will the “wise Latina?” We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.

I expect that the Court will treat this case the way they treated all prior eligibility cases-- cert. will be denied without a single recorded dissent.

49 posted on 11/08/2010 3:49:52 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

She does have that in her favor at least. Hopefully she’ll do the same on this one. But then that will really show up Sotomayor’s lack of ethics of Kagan recuses herself but Sotomayor doesn’t recuse herself.


50 posted on 11/08/2010 3:50:48 PM PST by butterdezillion (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-196 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