To: ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93; traderrob6; OL Hickory; socialismisinsidious; trlambsr; Altera; ...
To: RobinMasters
A plaintiff on one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says federal courts must hear the challenges Gee, isn't that a shocker. A plaintiff wants doesn't want his case dismissed.
In other news, prosecutors want grand juries to indict their defendants, and football coaches want the calls they challange to be overturned.
3 posted on
10/12/2009 1:03:59 PM PDT by
curiosity
To: RobinMasters
In a legal sense, these cases remind me of the 1960s-1990s Tobacco Litigation. Every plaintiff lost.... until one won.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers kept going, because they knew that eventually, the dam would break. And when it did, all the plaintiffs began to win.
4 posted on
10/12/2009 1:05:20 PM PDT by
MindBender26
(Never kick leftists when they're down. Wait till they're half way back up. You get better leverage!)
To: LucyT
PING before the Obama supporters crawl from under their rocks and take over the thread.
6 posted on
10/12/2009 1:12:12 PM PDT by
stockpirate
("if my thought-dreams could be seen. They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Dylan)
To: RobinMasters
“former Vice President Dick Cheney”
You'd think Mr.Cheney would want a piece of Barry. Especially with a looming investigation into the *Plame* incident.
8 posted on
10/12/2009 1:14:34 PM PDT by
wolfcreek
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
To: RobinMasters
A plaintiff on one of the cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president says federal courts must hear the challenges, because to do otherwise would be treason Well that's really going to sway the judge. </sarcasm>
To: RobinMasters
26 posted on
10/12/2009 3:01:33 PM PDT by
wintertime
(People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson