Posted on 12/09/2008 9:10:17 AM PST by ckilmer
This man is an absolute @ss.
No more “Hot Air” visits for me.
I’m done, Ed.
Seems to me that now that FITZMAS is here, Obama’s first step toward federal prison on a political corruption charge should start with formal discovery that he wasn’t even born here ~ just another illegal alien.
This could all come to an end with Obama’s BC.
I don’t use language like that. I’d just say he’s an elitist.
Is that what I am? A “Birther”? Nice to know I have a kook name!!
Birther for life.
Hot Air = Spineless, unprincipled, Republican hacks
Actually, Hot Air is covering the story rather well.
“Wrotnowskis petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia,...”
Shouldn’t that tell this bonehead something. Ginsburg is a marxist hag who doesn’t care whether or not 0 was born in the US. Scalia cares about the constitution. This stupid article, rant, whatever assumes Scalia and Thomas are a couple of Neo-cons trying to overturn an election.
Gee, “birther”, what a complimentary nickname that is, and all this time I just considered myself a constitutional originalist.
No, no, no. For many around here the credo is: "You only agree with me 90% of the time. Therefore you are my enemy!"
Sure seems to be that way lately. If Cap’n ed was invited to Obama’s inaguration, he’d likely rent a tux and some kneepads to welcome in our first marxist (and potentially illegitimate) president.
or theyre letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider.
***That’s basically what I see. It’s an effective argument. How is it that I’m a wingnut if there’s 2 conservative supreme court justices who saw enough merit to have the cases forwarded to their colleagues? Are you calling Supreme Court justices wingnuts? Apparently the left wingers are, but I don’t think right wingers will.
Question for anyone who knows:
Are these conferences required for the Supreme Court to reject hearing a case?
From my understanding the answer is no.
It seems to me that it is a possible indication that there is interest in hearing this case if they had already had a conference on a similar case. Why would Justice Scalia bring this case to conference if they had already heard one and had no interest in hearing this case at all?
Just so that it wouldn’t get re-filed to another Jusitce?
The quickest way to bring this issue to a boiling point will occur only when the MSM demands BHO’s original B.C. I keep thinking back to the frothing media clamoring for GWB’s dental records...
The article says — “A commenter in Headlines speculates that theyre doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time theyre rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrios petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowskis petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, whos now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply wont deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.”
—
Yep, that’s what the end result is, no matter which “side” of the Supreme Court looks at the issue. It sounds exactly like what they are doing, looking at and then — “Denied”...
That puts an *end* to a particular case and to refiling for that case. They’re busy *putting an end* to all these cases. The Supreme Court might be done with that task, by the time Obama is inaugurated ....
It’s like I’ve been saying all along — all those in positions of authority or even the ones that we have as our own candidates or leaders of our own party say that this is nothing and that Obama is going to be the next President of the United States...
From a previous post of mine...
So, you had better get ready for Obama for many years, because that is what is going to happen.
Its the same thing that Rush Limbaugh has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Bush has decided is going to happen, the same thing that McCain has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Palin has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Republican Party has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Electoral College will decide is going to happen (being packed with Obots), the same thing that the controlling majority of Congress has decided is going to happen (being packed with Democrats), the same thing that the majority of the voting public has decided is going to happen (voted for Obama by a large margin), the same thing that the Supreme has apparently decided is going to happen (i.e., Denied...) and so why do you think its going to be different because you want to adhere to the Constitution?
And there you have it...
You said — “No more Hot Air visits for me.”
Pretty soon, all you’ll have left to visit — after you’ve eliminated all those conservative websites that know Obama is going to be the next President of the United States — are the liberal websites... LOL...
So we’re ‘birthers’ now. What a jerk this guy is , trying to get as close to ‘truthers’ as he can, verbally. Hot air, that’s all he offers.
What is the lesson that Ginsburg and Souter are sending?
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.