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

To: Nero Germanicus
Tisdale v Obama, US District Court Judge John A. Gibney, Jr.: “It is well settled that those born within the United States are natural born citizens.”— Tisdale v Obama, US District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia, January 23, 2012.

I regard your persistence in citing modern day cases as nothing but provocation. I have no respect for modern courts. Utterly NONE. They are clown proceedings with no underlying principle or legitimacy. They are the creaking of the hull plates as this massive ship slowly twists before sinking.

It is pretty much accepted amongst conservatives that the courts are political tools, and do not accurately reflect what is the law, but rather the opinion of the people who are nominated to them. Court decisions are the darling of Liberals, Conservatives tend to loath them because too often have we been the victim of foolhardy and ridiculous pronouncements from the courts.

Why do you persist in citing institutions of which conservatives have precious little respect, and often down right hatred? What sort of conservative hides beneath the black robes of the despised liberal courts?

203 posted on 05/07/2013 11:30:40 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]


To: DiogenesLamp

I think you may have forgotten that this thread is about a modern day elected politician who might run for president in 2016 and who might have his eligibility determined by modern day courts and contemporary elected officials.


223 posted on 05/07/2013 8:55:34 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

There has been no difference whatsoever in the rulings of liberal judges and conservative judges on issues related to presidential eligibility.
Only modern day courts have been and will be ruling on this issue with regard to Obama or potentially Cruz, Rubio and Jindal. That’s why the rulings are pertinent. If you find reality to be “provocative,” so be it.

There will be a very interesting test case soon, McInnish, et. al. v. Chapman. Every party in this Obama eligibility challenge is a conservative Republican: the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendant who is the Secretary of State of Alabama and her attorney, the Alabama Attorney General; and every member of the Alabama Supreme Court, without exception, is a conservative Republican including two of the widely acknowledged most conservative jurists in America, Chief Justice Roy Moore and Justice Tom Parker.


228 posted on 05/07/2013 9:34:37 PM PDT by Nero Germanicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: DiogenesLamp

“I regard your persistence in citing modern day cases as nothing but provocation. I have no respect for modern courts. Utterly NONE. They are clown proceedings with no underlying principle or legitimacy. They are the creaking of the hull plates as this massive ship slowly twists before sinking.

It is pretty much accepted amongst conservatives that the courts are political tools, and do not accurately reflect what is the law, but rather the opinion of the people who are nominated to them. Court decisions are the darling of Liberals, Conservatives tend to loath them because too often have we been the victim of foolhardy and ridiculous pronouncements from the courts.

Why do you persist in citing institutions of which conservatives have precious little respect, and often down right hatred? What sort of conservative hides beneath the black robes of the despised liberal courts?”

And 205: “You have this backwards. Any court which is stupid and corrupt, I will disagree with.

Do you agree with Kelo v New London? Do you agree with Larrance v Texas? Do you agree with Wickard v Fillburn? Do you agree with Roe v Wade, or Plessy v Ferguson? How about Dred Scott v Sanford?

Tell us conservatives who have learned to detest the biased and corrupt court system how you agree with all these despised decisions because the courts “say so.”

If you believe the basis of our laws should be “because the courts say so”, then you are at complete odds with my understanding of Moral principle, and would no doubt have defended the decisions of the Volksgerichtshof as they stole the money and property from the Jews.

The Courts are not GOD.”

These are two of the best posts ever posted to any thread at any time. We have a sm cadre of vocal liberals who do a reasonable job of not looking overly liberal...UNTIL the matter of courts comes up. Then they act like the total leftists they are.

Conservatives learned a long time ago to expect nothing from the courts. Well, nothing but periodic slaps in the face & kicks in the teeth. To say we lost faith in judges is too much an understatement. We realized that judges enjoy abusing their power to promote liberalism & undercut conservatism. We see this every single day.

Still you have posters, on this site no less, citing the judiciary as if it’s a moral authority. It’s an active battalion in the liberal army. There is no sentient, politically active conservative who doesn’t know this.

Still I appreciate your pointing it out so eloquently. Maybe if we post similar comments 10,000 more times, the liberals in our midst will start to catch on.


242 posted on 05/08/2013 1:01:18 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | 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