Ping the usual suspects.
The judge can't help but throw in a snarkey comment can he?
The injustice was that SCOTUS declined the case. Lower courts aren't going to rock the boat that the SCOTUS refuses to rock.
Sad that SCOTUS has become so ideological, so political...that it will choose to ignore one party's qualifications to be properly examined.
That being said...the handwriting is on the wall. Lower courts are going to be irritated that the injustice is brought up *again* to them when the issue has been settled by SCOTUS.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92277
Funny, he don’t look like no “blue gum baboon”
The doors to justice are closed.
I am simply having a brainstorm her and NOT advocating or suggesting someone do something illegal.
The issue must be resolved!! Legal action has, to date, failed. Many folks are becoming more frustrated. Just Sayin.
If the courts let this pass then perhaps a fund could ne built for the reward sum of $$$ for the BC.
Someone somewhere might just cough it up.
LOL!!
Did this turd even read his own dismissall ? I quote one part from it :
This case, if it were allowed to proceed, would deserve mention in one of those books that seek to prove that the law is foolish or that America has too many lawyers with not enough to do. Even in its relatively short life the case has excited the blogosphere and the conspiracy theorists. The right thing to do is to bring it to an early end.....The issue of the Presidents citizenship was raised,vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged byAmericas vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obamas two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.
What an A**HOLE ( or should I say O-HOLE ). So now he says he never commented on the merits ?
That may not be going anywhere but Easterling et al vs Obama et al is looking much more hopeful. Listen to Steve Malzberg at about 5 minutes into this podcast:
http://podcast.wor710.com/wor/1652701.mp3
BTTT
What else can one expect from a Clintonista appointee? We’ll be living with these Constitution-tredding imbeciles for a long time. But fear not, I’m sure Ocrumbo’s appointments will be even worse.
I'm a little confused here...
isn't... "having found that Mr. Hemenways interpleader suit failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"...
a conclusion derived from addressing the merits?
...and what's an "interpleader suit"?