Posted on 12/01/2008 12:00:07 PM PST by spiderfern
Mark Davis opened up discussion for Obama's vaulted birth certificate. He said it was all up to the courts, but he doubted it would go anywhere.
IMO, I honestly don't think they even need to be pressured... they want this case and it is their branch of government (as guardian of the constitution) that would be harmed irreparably.
As much as everyone thinks they are sitting their in their little robes fretting over mass rioting and protests, they couldn't give two s**ts if cities burn. They are first among equals when it comes to the three branches and cases like this only serve to reiterate that, imo.
That’s the problem with too many talk shows, the host simply offers it up to the callers — who generally contribute nothing of substance. I’m more interested in listening to the guy who gets paid to make political/sports/whatever commentary and does so for a living. I can’t count the number of times I turn the volume dial down because some caller is droning on about something they know nothing about or is simply re-hashing the hosts argument. The real radio talent lies in Limbaugh and Hannity, not the caller.
Oh, and I say that in a good way... they need to be able to rule free from the constraints of Obama, Pelosi and the the folks that will be looting Korean corner stores.
Roger Hedgecock is a good backup for Rush, too, though.
IMO, I honestly don’t think they even need to be pressured... they want this case and it is their branch of government (as guardian of the constitution) that would be harmed irreparably...
Exactly, that is what I trying to say, a self imposed/peer/SCOTUS pressure not external pressure.
Ahh, I gotcha. Great minds :-)
What an idiot he is! That's why we have Courts, Mark, -- to make sure that in the presence or even the absence of a law those in office or seeking office follow the words of the Constitution.
‘It’s my understanding that Justice Souter denied Berg’s request, but the Writ he issued stated that Obama must disclose the vaulted birth certificate to Berg personally.’
Where did the writ say that?
“Rush has spoken about it on several occasions (of course, if you are boycotting Rush, you probably missed it).. His prediction was it didn’t have legs.”
You are correct that Rush has spoken about it in the past. But when he decided that this issue “didn’t have legs” and therefore dismissed it as “nothing to see here”, I stopped supporting him by listening to his show.
Rush Limbaugh could have helped educate more Americans about Obama’s refusal to release his birth certificate and his refusal in providing us with his other “secret” records, but Rush chose not to do that. He buried his head in the sand on this and in doing so, he was no better than the liberal MSM.
Like you wrote on your Home Page:
GWB won 2002 and 2004 but it was a two election plan, after that he destroyed the party.
You ever think that with his close friendship with people like Justice Thomas, he may have a more inside track on the legal and Constitutional aspects over, say, some bloggers? Maybe he has a better idea how the USSC would look at the COLB and or take the statements by the State of Hawaii?
In a sane world, Dr. Walter Williams would be President-elect, and Barack Obama would be guest-hosting for Randi Rhodes.
but we will see soon enough find out ... excerpted from SCOTUS website:
| No. 08-570 | ||||
| Title: |
|
|||
| Docketed: | October 31, 2008 | |||
| Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
| Case Nos.: | (08-4340) |
| Rule 11 |
| ~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Oct 30 2008 | Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) |
| Oct 31 2008 | Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. |
| Nov 3 2008 | Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. |
| Nov 3 2008 | Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. |
| Nov 18 2008 | Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed. |
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
RE :What about stopping GOP spending, too?
LOL. I was hoping GWB gone and huge election losses would end that. The dynamics should change dramatically, but I wouldnt bet on it.
“He said about zero 0% chance it will go anywhere. I hope you folks are not counting this, lets have a backup plan if this fails, like stopping democrats spending maybe.”
There seems to be a lot of people who lack the moral courage to face this issue. Would their position be any different if the ticket were Arnold Schwarzenegger (a lot of people were bemoaning him not being eligible) and Chelsea Clinton (after all she is the best politician). we either enforce the Constitutional requirements are we remain mute and they become moot.
I agree, but the scary part is at the bottom:
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
Since when does the SG speak for the DNC? He could speak for the FEC and possibly even Obama being a gov’t employee, but the DNC is neither a federal agency nor are they federal employees.
RE : “There seems to be a lot of people who lack the moral courage to face this issue”
These type of things do not go over well with voters. Even Clinton’s impeachment, which seemed justified , backfired. That’s why Pelosi locked down Conyers with his impeachment hearings. It’s political war so you dont destroy all your resources out of principle. Show me it sold to public and I will become enthused.
Rush needs to go work on his putting while Savage talks about Tippy the dog, Hannity sucks up to Democrats on his show like Lanny Davis, Levin screams and shouts but it a wimp because he will not mention Leo Donofrio’s case.
They are cowards. And those of you parroting “it is not going anywhere” need to read this plus Leo’s web site:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=20210273
The first criminal case for any law O signs will mean the defendant can ask for his birth certificate. They will have a team of forensic people too. Once O is exposed as a fraud - every case, law, appointment, treaty or anything else is void.
SCOTUS will have to deal with this or there will be chaos.
Thanks!! I was wondering if anyone reads that. Yes, I painfully came to these conclusions, I truly believed GWB knew what he was doing early on 2003, by 2004 I was worried, 2005-2006 I was sick, by December 2006 I was enraged for my trust being betrayed and knew we would lose big in 2008.
One lesson I learned painfully was to be careful of what your favorite radio talk show hosts are saying when their (our) side is in power. When they say ‘it’s all media bias’ and all republicans are called stupid and bull headed by them (as in Coulters book Slander) , it’s possible the liberal media is on to something true and smell blood.
> The first criminal case for any law O signs will mean the defendant can ask for his birth certificate.
Sure. They can ask.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.