cert denied, Silveira (link)

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/120103pzor.pdf ^

[Eastbound]

Okay, thanks a bunch for clearing that up. There are times when I look for the logic of the court and it is like listening to Abbott and Costello do their 'Who's On First' routine.

[neverdem]

AFAIK=As far as I, what's the K?
Know

I just had one of the biggest laughs in a long, long time. Thank you very much for the courtesy of your reply in an otherwise news filled day. Adios

[neverdem]

AFAIK=As far as I, what's the K?
Know

I just had one of the biggest laughs in a long, long time. Thank you very much for the courtesy of your reply in an otherwise news filled day. Adios

[general_re]

The plaintiffs can be bona-fide saints and angels, but if their lawyer is putting together a sh*tburger for a case, the fact that they're saints and angels won't save them once they hit the courtroom.

[neverdem]

Don't be too bitter about today's events at SCOTUS. As much as a dispositive ruling is desired, the wrong ruling could start a civil war, which is the last resort.

Anyone who wants war is nuts, so I believe, we must hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

BTW, I also hoped the Frogs and Russkies would support our efforts in the UN for peaceful regime change in Iraq. It's too bad they confirmed the worst assumptions about human nature.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Quote from Freeper the gillman@blacklagoon.com:

The best case in the history of the world will not move the SCOTUS if they insist on treason.

The worst case would not matter if they insisted on the truth.

[El Gato]

BTW, I also hoped the Frogs and Russkies would support our efforts in the UN for peaceful regime change in Iraq.

The Frogs and Russkies are not sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the so called Justices of the Supreme Court are. The Frogs and the Russkies are not charged with protecting our rights, the Supreme Court is.

The refusal to rule, while the other two branches just keep adding more "laws" infringing the right of the people may be less likely to start a civil war than the wrong ruling. But that may actually be a Bad Thing. Because by the time the legislative and executive branch turn up the frog pot several more times, the Court might rule correctly and it wouldn't make a dimes worth of differance, because the people would already be disarmed. They would be unable to back up the court when it makes a correct ruling, on this or any other "right of the people" issue. To misquote Joe Stalin "How many guns does the court have?"

Someone indicated earlier that it takes only 4 justices to grant cert. If that is correct and we couldn't get 4 now, we are unlikely to get 5 later, because even if a lib or two are replaced, there will be one of the 3 (or less) "on our side" who will also be replaced. Most of the current Justices are Republican appointees as it is, demonstrating that who appoints the justices doesn't make as much difference as one might hope.

It appears as if, at the national level at least, the soap box has failed, the ballot box has failed, the jury box (representing the judicial system) has failed, doesn't leave much does it? It leaves Cletus is what it leaves.

I would just as soon he kept his nose in that book, which he would if the Supremes would just do their job. At least if they did it correctly.

[El Gato]

Anyone who wants war is nuts, so I believe, we must hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

I agree, but the worst just got closer and more likely.

[blau993]

Actually, mon chat, I was referring to the entire course of events that led to the Supreme Court. What happened there was, for anyone concerned with RTKBA, a mercy killing.

[neverdem]

I'm not that big and my nose is fatter.