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

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: Jack Black
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 except push these aside with procedurals

Ah, there it is. Exactly correct.

It is like having a mason jar with fresh turd in it. Everyone can see what is in the jar but if no one opens it there is no stink, which would prove the exact nature of the contents. Just make an excuse and pass it on. The SC has no one to pass to so it is denied without comment. They obviously can see the Emperor’s clothes, right?

Round and round the toilet bowl we go…

94 posted on 12/17/2008 10:22:34 AM PST by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: Jack Black
For what it's worth, it only takes four votes for the court to hear a case. The four conservative justices could force a hearing on the issue if all four agreed. Given that there've been no leaks of dissension from the Court, I suspect (without proof) they've all decided they don't need to hear these cases. I'm confident that if Justice Scalia thought there was a Constitutional issue at hand, we'd know about it.
393 posted on 12/18/2008 10:36:21 PM PST by MN Doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

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