Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: TexasKate

The case was weak, harm not clearly shown. I read it as if it were one of those ‘standing type’ rejections.

The wording of the order was clearly ... TRY AGAIN with a stronger better argument.

Read the fine print.


74 posted on 06/09/2009 4:53:25 PM PDT by Tarpon (You abolish your responsibilities, you surrender your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]


To: Tarpon

BS, this was important enough to hear. If they were courageous enough they would have heard the case. Let the SCOTUS take responsibility for allowing the Executive Branch to destroy the United States of America. They were the last hope of checking the Obama Oppression. They effing failed.


108 posted on 06/09/2009 4:59:27 PM PDT by Chgogal (American Mugabe, get your arse out of my bank and get your arse out of my car!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

To: Tarpon

“The case was weak, harm not clearly shown. I read it as if it were one of those ‘standing type’ rejections.

The wording of the order was clearly ... TRY AGAIN with a stronger better argument.

Read the fine print.”

Someone should call a Scalia expert because I think you just smacked it out of the ballpark.

Congrats.


474 posted on 06/10/2009 9:15:02 PM PDT by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson