Without The Constitution, the Supreme Court has no authority, so if they rule it void, then their ruling is without force.
OK, now what is this case really about?
Let’s hope Mark Levin covers this on his radio program, today!
Somebody forgot their morning meds?
Based solely on what’s presented here, it sounds like a pro se appeal - the questions themselves are inflammatory. Not saying these aren’t good points, but the SCOTUS prefers questions of law, not drama. Put your flamers away, I’m just saying that as a PROCEDURAL matter, it’s unhelpful to use arguments designed to inflame the passions.
Colonel, USAFR
Don’t know anything about but the title alone seems laughable.
If there is no Constitution on what, then, do we base our laws?
It would mean the Courts are now in activist positions and can interpret law on their bias or even base decisions on international law.
This is a press release from the guy involved in the lawsuit. Anything from PRNewswire is a paid promotional release, not a news story.
He sounds like a loony.
It is quite simple actually.
The court is authorized by the Constitution. If SCOTUS rules the Constitution invalid, it rules that it is not a lawful body and is not authorized to make such a judgment.
Anybody can post anything on PR Newswire. I would want to hear about this from several other sources before believing a word of it. He filed these “petitions” this month and thinks the Supreme Court is going to hear them soon? The Supreme Court, as near as it it possible to tell from this mess of a press release, hasn’t even agreed to hear any of this, let alone issue a decision. This nothing more than a press release from a person who is desperate for personal publicity, and, frankly, a crank. Total waste of time.
I’ve now looked this up:
“Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Orinda D. Evans”
Friday, 08 October 2010 00:00 William M. Windsor
“Maid of the Mist Accused of Hundreds of Counts of Perjury”
by Niagara Falls Newsline | April 27, 2009
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/maid-mist-accused-hundreds-counts-perjury
Maid of the Mist Corporation v. Windsor...
Jul 23, 2010 ...
MAID OF THE MIST STEAMBOAT COMPANY, LTD.,. Plaintiffs - Counter-. Defendants - Appellees, versus. ALCATRAZ MEDIA, LLC,. ALCATRAZ MEDIA, INC. ...
httP://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/201010139.pdf
Kookiness. Shouldn’t have been on Breitbart. The Supreme Court denied cert., which means that they refused to hear it.
There is no “landmark” decision forthcoming. The article is full of other fearmongering.
There are serious problems with what our courts do in real cases. Worry about them, not this one.
4. Can man-hating, racist hacks be appointed as associate justices of the Supreme Court?
bookmark
No. 10A438
Title:
William M. Windsor, Applicant
v.
United States, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct: United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Case Nos.: (1:09-cv-2027)
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 25 2010 Application (10A438) for a stay, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 1 2010 Application (10A438) denied by Justice Thomas.
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
William M. Windsor P.O. Box 681236
Marietta, GA 30068
Party name: William M. Windsor
Attorneys for Respondents:
Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: United States, et al.
///////////////////////////////
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2009cv02027/160483/22/
He who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Unfortunately, the source of the story is Mr. Winston.
I cannot imagine the supreme court granting certiorari in a case where the legal issues are phrased so poorly. Then, when you read the article, it is clear that: (1) the supreme court denied certiorari in the appellant’s first crack in appealing from the 11th circuit decision; and (2) Those are not the issues at all—the appellant is just asking the supremes to overturn findings of fact by the trial court—something the supremes almost never do (except when a liberal majority decides that findings of fact are inconvenient to a major policy decision they want to make—and then, they just ignore them).
The appellant thinks he can make the supreme court spend it’s time on ill-framed issues that have nothing to do with the case by using a writ of mandate. It will not work.
What we have here is a barking mad lunatic who got sued and lost. He then developed a litigious obsession, and continues filing one frivolous motion, appeal and lawsuit after another, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. He thinks that the fact that he lost and keeps losing is inconceivable in a just world, and therefore proves in and of itself that the entire structure of the government is corrupt and a lie. In his demented imagination, him losing is incompatible with ordered liberty. In a word, it is unconstitutional for him to lose. Thus, his statement of the issue.
This guy makes Orly Taitz look like Antonin Scalia.
Nuts like him are a dime a dozen and can be found in any courthouse in the US. He’s just like every other nut who loses who cannot accept that reality, and persist in filing papers until they get sick, die or are otherwise prevented from carrying on. It’s part of their delusion. It is definitely not news.
Insanity takes many forms, and this is just one of them.
Somebody take this and run with it.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10a438.htm