Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look

[DanG 1]

This thread is like Speakers Corner in a bottle. I asked a simple question of the OP, and because I have a left leaning reputation, it instantly becomes a partisan pile-on flamefest.

Reread the thread and tell me with a straight face that I'm the one being unreasonable.

- Dan G

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Sometimes the court takes cases not because they anticipate overturning the ruling, but because the issue involved is so important, of such consequence that an affirmation at the very highest level is important.

I think this is appropriate.

Nothing for Obama to be afraid of, right? If they rule in his favor, and even the conservative justices go along then there should be no more controversy (or at least less, some will likely not be satisfied).

Another reason is if there is new evidence uncovered and/ or old evidence is disproved.

Hypothetical: Would anyone be prosecuted if possibly determined that they were guilty of perjury?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

This thread is like Speakers Corner in a bottle. I asked a simple question of the OP, and because I have a left leaning reputation, it instantly becomes a partisan pile-on flamefest.

Reread the thread and tell me with a straight face that I'm the one being unreasonable.

Your words:

"Wow, you got all that because some news reporter dogged Boehner about birthers? Very impressive projection (in both senses of the word). "

That isn't inflamatory or biased at all, is it?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

No, neither inflammatory nor biased, especially compared to the post that it responded to.

- Dan G

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

No, neither inflammatory nor biased, especially compared to the post that it responded to.

That post had something to do with the subject. Your response didn't. Unless you think the subject matter had something to do with projection.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm a white American male. What does being ethnic have to do with anything?

Sorry if I interrupted your radical right wing circle jerk.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Nice way to dodge but if the SCOTUS is still willing to look at it maybe there just might be something there.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that the article says the Supreme Court is actually doing is checking whether it followed its own internal procedure properly when it dismissed the challenge the first time round.

It doesn't appear to contain any indication whatsoever that they're actually going to look at the case.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Nice way to dodge but if the SCOTUS is still willing to look at it maybe there just might be something there.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that the article says the Supreme Court is actually doing is checking whether it followed its own internal procedure properly when it dismissed the challenge the first time round.

It doesn't appear to contain any indication whatsoever that they're actually going to look at the case.

For the most part what you post here is true

I did think that because of issue mentioned the total number of justices would be different then if a vote were held on the topic it may effect the outcome

However, I posted this more for the quote I included in the op

IF, and I am only saying if and being general about this and not posting to Obamas situation specifically, this situation would play out that a president is not eligible and was in office appointing and signing law, all of that becomes nothing!

No laws he signs are laws, no apointments stick, no exectutive orders are binding and on and on


What a mess that would be


It seems that a way to make sure this debate is held before any other presidents are voted in needed

Some states have taken that us by passing laws that require proof of eligibility

what a mess that may be

In this case a federal process should be in place

Now to Obama

He has yet to provide the specific document of proof. Even Abercrombie said he could not find it

But again

I dont want this to be about Obama

I am looking forward

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Now to Obama

He has yet to provide the specific document of proof. Even Abercrombie said he could not find it

But again

I dont want this to be about Obama

Then don't talk about him. Yoiu can't expect to be able to get your little dig in, then not have anyone respond to it because you say you want to talk about something else.

What you've just done is like saying "I don't want to talk about your girlfriend, just ugly women in general. Now your girlfriend is a bit of a dog, but this isn't about her!"

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I dont want this to be about Obama

You've posted some whoppers in the past, but this has to be the biggest!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

Another reason is if there is new evidence uncovered and/ or old evidence is disproved.

Not at the Supreme Court level. They do not accept "evidence" for their hearings, they only listen to brief arguments and then are the only ones to ask questions. If there is "new evidence" than it has to be reintroduced at the federal district level and ask for a reappeal at that level.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[GeorgiaDon 380]

And once again, there is no "there" there.

Not that the "birthers" have ever let facts get in the way of their ODS.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)