Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
He did swear in a man who was not eligible, but Roberts didn't know this aspect of the law well enough to realize it.

Oh, brother... Really? God, that's pathetic. I don't even think a facepalm .jpg would be effective in conveying the idiocy of what you just wrote.

451 posted on 02/04/2012 6:52:03 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies ]


To: Drew68
Oh, brother... Really? God, that's pathetic. I don't even think a facepalm .jpg would be effective in conveying the idiocy of what you just wrote.

The idiot is the person who thinks someone would know everything about a document which encompasses a wide array of legal principles and have specific knowledge of a tiny little ambiguous jot of it that has been mostly forgotten for the last 200 years.

What makes you think Judge Roberts understands the 1787 meaning of the term of art "natural born citizen"? He is a product of the legal system, and as a result of this has many bad understandings of the law baked into his education.

Every since Roosevelt and Truman stacked the court system with liberal kooks for 20 years, the legal system has been full of idiots teaching kooky law.

This topic cannot be understood correctly without looking at the original source material, and I dare say few people have ever bothered to do it. Judge Roberts is very likely not among them. Obviously, since you can assert such a stupid thing as you just said, you also are very unlikely to have reviewed the source material, and are therefore probably waxing loud in your ignorance, and would be better served if you just shut up.

457 posted on 02/04/2012 7:05:27 AM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson