WND reports: Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

World Net Daily ^ | March 10, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[KTM rider]

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

[KTM rider]

Hey, than god we got scalia at least !

if they can turn a woman's right to choose into legally justified homicide then they can turn the ocean into jello, no problemo

[Old Sarge]

So, he heard it from a friend who heard it from a reliable source who ....

Uh-huh...

[Born In America]

Roberts? Thomas? Alito?

[GOP Poet]

on what grounds is the conservative denying the hearing?

[Red Steel]

Roberts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203869/posts

[GOP Poet]

I wonder which one. I do not think it is Thomas though.

[Big_Monkey]

No way does Scalia make any public (or private) comments on business before the court, or on cases that may eventually come before the court. This is ridiculous on its face.

[Eye of Unk]

[LibLieSlayer]

Roberts or Alito... my money is on Roberts... I watched his hearings and my gut is telling me that it is him. Thomas would knock the snot out of hussein... and he loves the Constitution and has brass balls. Alito is an upfront Constructionist... no way it is him.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

That is probably true... but it is fun to speculate on which Conservative Justice is scared to touch it.

LLS

[originalbuckeye]

Roberts looked quite chummy with Zero on Inauguration Day. My money's on Roberts.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Scalia didn’t say there were 3 votes— it would be a huge breach of judicial ethics for him to say any such thing. All he said (even asuming the truth of the report) was that you need 4 votes for the Supreme Court to hear a case— a basic rule of Supreme Court procedure. When these cases came before the Court before, every one was denied without a single recorded dissent.

[NinoFan]

Exactly.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2203441/posts

[Belle22]

“No way does Scalia make any public (or private) comments on business before the court, or on cases that may eventually come before the court. This is ridiculous on its face.”

Exactly. It is absolutely absurd to suggest that Justice Scalia is going to publicly express an opinion — or have an ex parte conversation — about this or anything else that might come before him.

These plaintiffs need to get away from this woman. I know from a recent posting of her writing that she can’t even spell.

[max americana]

No way is it Thomas. He walks the walk on conservatism and I have read his book, heard him speak at a conference and spoke with him personally.
I am assuming that it is Roberts, though.

[Big_Monkey]

"I know from a recent posting of her writing that she can’t even spell.

I saw that posting too. Her spelling deficiency, along with her statement about having the President arrested for contempt of court, were the two things that made my "crazy woman" alarm go off.

Hey, what do you expect from a woman who got her law degree on-line?

[LibLieSlayer]

That is my thinking on the subject. I would love to talk with Roberts about it if it were to be him... if there is any truth to this. I want to know what reasoning could possibly allow a man that believes in the Constitution and the Founders intent, to run away from such a basic Constitutional argument/requirement?

LLS

[ronnie raygun]

We need to put pressure on them, if he is found to be a fraud all of his executive orders and trillion dollar programs are NULL AND VOID!

[Red Steel]

A previous thread on this

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2203441/posts