Posted on 12/06/2008 2:00:18 PM PST by Deepest End
The decision on granting a hearing challenging President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship is still pending.
The "Washington Times" reports that the U.S. Supreme Court held a private conference Friday morning to discuss whether to take up a lawsuit but it was not on the list of court orders for the day.
According to the "Times" a Supreme Court spokesman said the decision to hear the case will most likely be announced next week.
(Excerpt) Read more at arkansasmatters.com ...
Let’s hope the guy in the wheelchair at the fortified presidential palace—protected by a standing army, etc.—was right!
Circumstances can work both ways—and we’re due for a break (no pun)!
While I understand your position and appreciate it, I believe there is more to this.
Of the 50+ million votes Obama got, how many of the voters knew:
1. His cousin is in power in Kenya and that Obama campaigned for him over there?
2. His sister is an illegal alien living off public assistance in Boston?
3. He was adapted by an Indonesian and became Barry Soetero?
4. He had British citizenship at birth?
5. He traveled mulitple times to Pakistan and Indonesia as a child?
etc, etc.
Not a single Obama voter I have talked to knew any of these things.
I think what’s going on is that there are a few on the Court who are having difficulty figuring out how to trash the Constitution without it going down in history as being quite obvious.
A good general knows where the battlefield is. It has moved way, way beyond this silly birth certificate. You're still fighting the last battle, let alone the last war.
So, a good general should capitulate to those who actively undermine the Constitution, the heart and soul of our democracy, in order to preserve it for a later date.
Philippe Pétain would be proud.
did you get this yet? THE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT ABOUT IT.
In America, if you go against the clearly expressed will of the majority, you will lose, not just a little and for a little while, but a lot, and forever. Ask the Federalists.
How many Jackson voters knew he had killed two Brits in cold blood?
How many Lincoln voters knew he had opposed the Mexican war and the annexation of California?
You can play these games all day. People vote for a variety of reasons. The similarities here to the late 1990s are stunning, and I'm really surprised (guess I shouldn't be) that Freepers haven't learned their lesson: in the late 1990s, Freepers kept saying, "If the voters only know this or that about Clinton, then they'll support impeachment and conviction." Er, no.
Did it occur to you that the voters (including many of our own) make up their minds based on what they want to make up their minds about?
Do you think ANY of the Perot voters in 1992 knew that he didn't have a clue as to how government worked? Did it matter?
This is really, really stupid and dangerous to keep thinking that "if the voters only know" they will support me/us/my party. It's a far better strategy to assume that they DO know why they elected the guy, and to find a way to deal with that.
It's a mirror-image of the Dems' complaint in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 ... "We didn't get out message out." That postmortem analysis was roundly and rightly mocked here on FR.
It's a dangerous step onto the proverbial slippery slope -- it's easy to ignore election results altogether if you can convince yourself that the voters didn't really mean it.
Amen, Bro. At that point you start saying the voters are stupid, which makes you sound very much like a Dem for the longest time.
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.