Supreme Court Upholds 'Birther' Sanction - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds 'Birther' Sanction

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    ...the ONLY thing they did is REFUSE TO HEAR the case...
    Translation:

    Supreme Court Upholds Birther Sanction

    Refusing to hear the case is the tyical response to frivilous lawsuits at any level, which BTW is what the original sanction was. Numbnuts appealed, he lost. Same practical effect. You can argue semantics all you want. It's a common legal proceeding well understood by anyone not blinded by bigotry.

    Short summary: They don't have time for this nonsense.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    FOR THE RECORD, DESPITE WHAT THE BIASED MEDIA IS SPEWING...

    THE FACTS ARE...

    THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT UPHOLD THE SO-CALLED BIRTHER SANCTION...

    The U.S. Supreme Court Did Not Confirm Or Uphold the So-Called Birther Sanctions...

    What they did and the ONLY thing they did is REFUSE TO HEAR the case...
    "10A56
    TAITZ, ORLY V. MACDONALD, THOMAS D., ET AL.
    The application for stay addressed to Justice Alito and
    referred to the Court is denied."
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...s/081610zr.pdf

    Just Like The Draconian Fine That Was Imposed For Asking The Question... No Evidence Was Allowed To Be Presented, No Oral Arguments, No Opinion, No Precedent...

    What they did does not reflect an opinion of the court one way or the other...

    For all intents and purposes it is NEUTRAL...

    To-date not one single court has accepted and entered onto the record any de facto, prima facie evidence from ANYBODY on this issue, every case has been conveniently dismissed without being heard on one technicality or another or just flat out not heard, which SCOTUS does on the vast majority of ALL CASES OF ANY TYPE, which is their current privilege...

    Further, according the F.E.C. (Part of the Public Record For All To See) Obama has to-date spent over a million dollars of his Presidential Campaign Contributions on legal fees keeping this OUT of the courts...
    Same guy put 30 lawyers on the ground in Wasilla, Alaska less then 24 hours after Sarah Palin was nominated as McCain's running mate on a smear campaign in collusion with the biased media that continues to this day ...

    Mark my words the day will come when Barack Hussein Obama Jr. IS held to the SAME STANDARD John Sydney McCain III was on this IDENTICAL ISSUE...

    IF he is not hiding his natural born citizenship, HE IS HIDING SOMETHING...



    In this book he co-authored... According to Justice Antonin Scalia
    Less then 1% of the cases submitted and refused to be heard are actually seen or read by a Justice/Judge...

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  4. #13
    The Sanction Cases Fyi...

    Again, sanctions and allegations of misconduct, and YET no evidence has been allowed to be entered on the record...
    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...r-10-13-09.pdf

    This is nothing more then Judicial Intimidation and Harassment...

    In every instance, the conclusion was the result of a legal maneuver by Obama's legal team and influence as Commander in chief of the armed forces to prevent being compelled to DO THE RIGHT THING and prove he is or is not hiding something from the American people; criminal and thus impeachable...

    Barack Obama needs to be held to at least the same standard as John McCain was on this identical issue...

    Is Obama constitutionally eligible to serve?

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    This is nothing more then Judicial Intimidation and Harassment...
    That would be your limited, biased perspective forming an opinion. Undoubtedly the justices who signed off on rejecting this case they never saw knew full well what they were doing, are CONSERVATIVE judges, and have access to more information about it than you could possibly ever dream of. They have already forgotten more about this case than you will ever know, gypsy.

    That would be fact, not opinion.

  6. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Cocked _and_Locked View Post
    That would be your limited, biased perspective forming an opinion. Undoubtedly the justices who signed off on rejecting this case they never saw knew full well what they were doing, are CONSERVATIVE judges, and have access to more information about it than you could possibly ever dream of. They have already forgotten more about this case than you will ever know, gypsy.

    That would be fact, not opinion.
    More FUD from your friendly neighborhood troll.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jonnyp View Post
    More FUD from your friendly neighborhood troll.
    Yeah, how does this guy, who is snide, sarcastic, rude, and inflammatory, manage to stay on this site? I look around and see all these people being banned, and I keep wondering how he manages to stay under the radar?

    One of life's little mysteries, I guess.
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Yeah, how does this guy, who is snide, sarcastic, rude, and inflammatory, manage to stay on this site? I look around and see all these people being banned, and I keep wondering how he manages to stay under the radar?

    One of life's little mysteries, I guess.
    He swallows.

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    Yeah, how does this guy, who is snide, sarcastic, rude, and inflammatory, manage to stay on this site? I look around and see all these people being banned, and I keep wondering how he manages to stay under the radar?

    One of life's little mysteries, I guess.
    When you find out let me know. I have been warned for bating and also for calling names. Not sure why when a couple of others seem to be able to do it at will. Not sure what name I called anyone lately. I have alluded to some as being trolls because of the obvious. Some of the others seem to attact others over and over and get away with it even using what I would call foul language.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  10. I still wonder how this whole "birther" issue came into play to begin with. It doesn't make much sense.

    One would think that Democratic competitors would have raised this issue to keep him from running for office.
    One would think that Republican candidates would have raised the issue before the election started.

    Why would both parties let someone ineligible to run for office get to square one?

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Booga View Post
    I still wonder how this whole "birther" issue came into play to begin with. It doesn't make much sense.

    One would think that Democratic competitors would have raised this issue to keep him from running for office.
    One would think that Republican candidates would have raised the issue before the election started.

    Why would both parties let someone ineligible to run for office get to square one?
    One would think that a birth certificate is one of those documents your required to bring the day you "sign up".

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NY Supreme Court 3rd Disctrict race
    By rheaj in forum New York Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-26-2011, 10:59 AM
  2. Supreme Court Grants NRA Motion For Divided Argument In McDonald v. City of Chicago
    By lukem in forum Illinois Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 01:27 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-05-2010, 09:59 PM
  4. Supreme Court Takes up Landmark Gun Case
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-01-2009, 09:59 PM
  5. D.C. Appeals Court Upholds Mandatory Gun Licensing
    By NDS in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 12:21 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast