Replies

You know, for as long as we’ve been dealing with this, that still hits me between the eyeballs. I still can’t quite absorb that, that the rule of law has just been suspended by the people who are put in place as the ultimate arbiters of the law.

There are other reasons why the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case. What I say now I've never seen posted anywhere else. Four of the Constitutionalist Supreme Court justices may not have the votes to win on Constitutional grounds against the activist judges on the SCOTUS bench. Lets say they don't have the 5 justices to win in this extremely important case. They discovered though the Supreme Court grapevine [or even through a straw poll] they know the swing vote Justice Kennedy may not yet be convinced for whatever reasons to rule against Obama. Why give the activist judges a win on such an important ruling that directly eviscerates the US Constitution?

It is also possible that 3 of the most extremely liberal activist judges are now or have voted yes because they know they can weaken the US Constitution. They feel the justices in the middle will eventually go there way if they get the fourth vote.

In both cases, as a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court jurist, you "Evade" the Obama eligibility case by voting NO.

"There are other reasons why the Supreme Court could refuse to hear the case. What I say now I've never seen posted anywhere else. Four of the Constitutionalist Supreme Court justices may not have the votes to win on Constitutional grounds against the activist judges on the SCOTUS bench. Lets say they don't have the 5 justices to win in this extremely important case. They discovered though the Supreme Court grapevine [or even through a straw poll] they know the swing vote Justice Kennedy may not yet be convinced for whatever reasons to rule against Obama. Why give the activist judges a win on such an important ruling that directly eviscerates the US Constitution?
It is also possible that 3 of the most extremely liberal activist judges are now or have voted yes because they know they can weaken the US Constitution. They feel the justices in the middle will eventually go there way if they get the fourth vote.

In both cases, as a strict constitutionalist Supreme Court jurist, you "Evade" the Obama eligibility case by voting NO."

THAT, is very plausible RS! And as horrible as that may seem on the surface, it would actually be better IF the 4 "Constitutionalists" on the bench voted NO on pursuing it if they thought there was a good chance Kennedy would vote with the libs in their new world order, America is aweful, social justice payback, the Constitution is outdated mindset.

However, now that 2 sit on the bench as a direct action (nomination) by the usurper himself...perhaps, now...the odds just got much better IF they were to recuse themselves (one or both). I think the public at large would be more than outraged if they learned that neither recused themselves in such an eligibility case. The public is far, far more awake now...than, say...the summer of 2008!

Thinking back...were there any eligibility related cases docketed AFTER the two picks where installed (other than this one and Taitz's pending)? In other words, weren't all the others that have been "filled" in the circular filing cabinet done so prior to the Kagan and Sotomyor? What I'm getting at is perhaps you're on to something. Perhaps now, the issue is "ripe" (esp. post Nov. 2)? Guess we'll find out soon.