Skip to comments.
Wrotnowski Case Referred to Full Court by Justice Scalia
SCOTUS ^
| 12/08/2008
| SCOTUS
Posted on 12/08/2008 11:28:55 AM PST by LongIslandConservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 301-305 next last
To: wildbill
SCOTUS can read tea leavesTo discover what??? original intent??? We're just hoping they can read the Constitution.
121
posted on
12/08/2008 1:47:01 PM PST
by
Uncle Chip
(TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
To: Uncle Chip
To: Red Steel
The SCOTUS takes up very few cases each year, (around 50 out of 6000-8000 petitioned). The cases taken each have very refined points of Constitutional law that are lost on most of us. It could be that the points covered in Wrotnowski have more significant implications re the Constitution.
The very fact that this overriding issue of eligibiility has now been referred twice to Committee says the issue (if not Obama’s eligibility) is ripe for SCOTUS action. Theoretically, SCOTUS deals only with points of Constitutional law, not personalities.
123
posted on
12/08/2008 1:55:35 PM PST
by
EDINVA
To: remaxagnt
why is it stronger?
More time and effort went into preparing a far more detailed brief that makes arguments which were missing in Leo’s brief.
To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick
Your question is most astute. By the Obama sending lawyers out (when running for office initially in Illionois!) to hide every aspect of his personal history, then this issue of divided loyalties floats to the top via his refusing to show proof of eligibility according to the Constitutional requirements, one can reasonably presume there are connections between hiding his college entry papers, college funding requests, and travel documentation for passport used at age 20.
125
posted on
12/08/2008 1:59:18 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: devere
More may actually sign on ... think of the legacy for this case and the judges’ name in History.
126
posted on
12/08/2008 2:02:46 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: savedbygrace
THANKS! I had missed the exact wording in the 20th amendment. "If the President elect shall have failed to qualify. It makes a lot of sense that the SCOTUS wouldn't rule until after the Electoral College meets. BTW, I love your screenname.
To: MHGinTN
something stinks to high heaven with this guy.... if it comes out after the inauguration what a treat that will be
To: bumsensiesie
Same thing and will be the same result. They are just milling them through so they can deny them. *sigh*OK troll. A quick look at your (brief) posting history confirms you are a troll.
Comment #130 Removed by Moderator
Comment #131 Removed by Moderator
To: Smokeyblue
The clinton sinkEmperor goons engineered most of the leaks.
132
posted on
12/08/2008 2:14:23 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: mkjessup
I’ll remember to ping you so you can gloat some more and ridicule your fellow freepers. Want you to get you full mony’s worth ... you do contribute to the FR fund raisers, right?
133
posted on
12/08/2008 2:18:55 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: MayflowerMadam
Because without the assumed 95% of black votes the Rodham rodent couldn’t win a cake walk.
134
posted on
12/08/2008 2:20:54 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
To: LucyT
I finally get to ping you, LucyT. Thanks for all you’ve done keeping us informed of each thread that comes up.
To: NinoFan
The Court isnt going to touch this with a ten-foot-pole. The fact that we dont know how the private conference went does not mean there is any realistic chance of them hearing it.
I disagree. If someone can make a compelling case, the Court will touch it. Donofrio's case wasn't compelling enough and was riddled with issues. If Cort's case can draw 4 votes, then this thing will explode and O'dummy's sphincter will be in a spasm.
136
posted on
12/08/2008 2:35:13 PM PST
by
LeoOshkosh
(Crazy Leo is right again)
Comment #137 Removed by Moderator
To: Former Fetus
The 20th Amendment only seems to apply if the person to become President dies. Take a closer look.
What this situation becomes is somewhat up in the air.
138
posted on
12/08/2008 2:38:56 PM PST
by
ConservativeMind
(Obama is bringing in every crook and bumbler he can to assure consistency in his message.)
To: Grampa Dave
It must have been completely vaporized because there’s no evidence of any remains!
139
posted on
12/08/2008 2:39:07 PM PST
by
vigilante2
(Thank You Troops)
To: savedbygrace
The other way to look at it, though, is that maybe they are distributing the cases because then the whole court is in on the denial.
Hard to say.
140
posted on
12/08/2008 2:44:49 PM PST
by
fightinJAG
(I love the Constitution.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 301-305 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson