Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons
Go Monthly
Planning to donate $10 or more? You can sponsor
one or more New Monthly Donors for no additional cost
FReepmail TheOldLady
Posted on 10/07/2011 9:05:25 AM PDT by edge919
How about Vickery2010? Is he Pro-life?
“BHO Sr. never acknowledged BHO II (not junior) until the 1964 divorce - at least in any paperwork that has been uncovered.”
Obama II is referenced as his son in paperwork dated August 31, 1961. See page 34 here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
It IS a good job! Discovering that it was the decision of a Carter appointee PROVES it cannot be correct! Ergo, the opposite is assured to be true.
“How about Vickery2010? Is he Pro-life?”
Wow. I’ve seen Birthers change the subject a lot, usually to avoid admitting mistakes, but this may take the cake for the most *random* change of subject.
In any case, yes. I’m baffled as to how it’s relevant, but yes.
Changing the subject when you are losing - nice tactic. Won’t work.
See my post 18. In addition to the Carter appointee, the other judges in the cases were appointed by Presidents Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon.
I just noticed his comment in #16. Apparently the “heart of the matter” when it comes to Birther claims is...abortion.
I never would’ve guessed.
They do that a lot, although usually not so blatantly. Refute something, and they move on to a different (usually inaccurate) claim. The sad part is the next thread will be repeating the already debunked claims all over again.
I've seldom seen such a clear-cut example of the ad hominem fallacy. Readers take note: this is what the term really refers to, not just insults.
The major problem is the "judge pool" is so contaminated by decades of appointments by Roosevelt/Truman (and their subsequent influence on the laws and law schools) that it is very difficult indeed to find a sensible grain amongst the chaff.
Reagan made mistakes, (Sandra Day O'Conner, Anthony Kennedy) and So did Eisenhower, (Earl Warren, William Brennan, Potter Stewart) and So did Nixon. ( Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell)
It is not that they don't understand the law, it is that they understand so much of it that isn't so. (To Paraphrase Reagan.)
Cudahy wrote the court's opinion.
And I don't have to argue with them to know what the intent and meaning of the NBC clause.
He did not take issue with the "natural born" of the main opinion.
Right lib lurker. It's nonsensical dicta that had no bearing on the outcome.
Not so random as you may think. I have long argued with people about allowing homosexuals in the military. I have pointed out that over the course of time, such people have demonstrated themselves over and over again to be treacherous. (The Cambridge Club, Bradly Manning, etc, e.g.) People would regale me with the need for Arabic language translators, and how important they were to our war effort etc. They would ask if we should forgo talent which we could use.
My response was always this. It is good that Soldiers can shoot. It is better that they can shoot well. A Soldier that shoots Excellent is a wonderful asset provided that the soldier IS ON OUR SIDE. The MOST IMPORTANT THING I need to know about a soldier is whether or not he is on our side.
In any case, yes. I’m baffled as to how it’s relevant, but yes.
I hope i've conveyed relevance above.
The Liberal argument for abortion is that a child does not have Legal "person" status " till "birth." The Pro-Life argument is that "person" status is inherent in it's existence.
The Arguments are Exactly equal to the current "jus soli"-"jus sanguinus" citizenship argument. "Birth" or "Inherent."
They get away with partial birth abortion because till the head emerges, they can legally consider it prior to "birth."
Remember your flow chart for Birther responses to caselaw that rebuts Birther claims.
Caselaw: From a state court.
Birther Response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal court.
Caselaw: From a federal district court.
Birther response: Unacceptable because it’s not from a federal appellate court.
Caselaw: From a federal appellate court.
Birther reponse: Unreliable because the judges who penned the opinion was not a Republican appointee.
Caselaw: From a Republican appointee on a federal appellate court.
Birther response: Unreliable because it’s not from the Supreme Court.
It helps to remind you how few Birthers have any sort of real legal education. No serious lawyer would ever argue to a court that precedent is unreliable based on the partisan affiliation of the President who appointed the judge who wrote the opinion.
Sorry, you've been routed. This is a Mop-up operation.
Besides that, the subjects are inextricably linked. The "jus soli" argument of Citizenship is exactly the same as the Liberal Argument for Abortion. ("It's not a person till born." "It's not a citizen till born.")
The Pro-Life Argument is "Jus Sanguinus." Law by blood. "It is both a "person" and a "citizen" by virtue of it's right by blood.
Now which side are you on? Life or Death? Blood or Soil?
When you are pulling apples out of a spoiled barrel, the odds are that you will get a bad one much of the time. Roe v Wade, Kelo, and numerous and sundry lesser decisions by the Supreme and lesser courts proves that the legal system is way out of whack. That is pretty much a standard conservative position nowadays. Do you disagree?
In any case, it is not evidence as to what Article II meant, it is only evidence that a lot of people don't know what the h3ll they are talking about.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2789388/posts?page=1#1
This could explain the separation in Hawaii..we know U. Hawaii officials complained to INS regarding Seniors multiple marriages and indecent behavior.
Did Stanley Ann take junior, abscond to Washington to avoid the possibility being deported.
Ad hominem attack on me, and still does not refute what I said.
The original poster seemed happy to rely on these cases when he thought they supported his position. Now that's refuted, you want to argue that since one of the judges involved was appointed by Carter, that whole ruling is discredited (three judge panel). Which doesn't address the other case cited, where the judge was appointed by President Nixon.
And I don't have to argue with them to know what the intent and meaning of the NBC clause.
You go right ahead and call anyone who disagrees with you names, assume you know the Constitution and law better than federal judges, and see where that gets you. It sure won't help get a real conservative elected, just get people thinking you like the tinfoil too much.
We could TEST your theory if you guys had ever managed to successfully refute anything, as that bridge has not been crossed yet, we may never know. :)
Read the assertion from the original poster that the children were deported, then look at our posts and the case itself. He claimed the children were deported. The cases don't say that. Refuted.
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.