Ad hominem attack on me, and still does not refute what I said.
The original poster seemed happy to rely on these cases when he thought they supported his position. Now that's refuted, you want to argue that since one of the judges involved was appointed by Carter, that whole ruling is discredited (three judge panel). Which doesn't address the other case cited, where the judge was appointed by President Nixon.
And I don't have to argue with them to know what the intent and meaning of the NBC clause.
You go right ahead and call anyone who disagrees with you names, assume you know the Constitution and law better than federal judges, and see where that gets you. It sure won't help get a real conservative elected, just get people thinking you like the tinfoil too much.
I know what you are after reading your posts for 2 years or more. It's no ad hominem - It's an observation lib.
you want to argue that since one of the judges involved was appointed by Carter, that whole ruling is discredited (three judge panel). Which doesn't address the other case cited, where the judge was appointed by President Nixon.
Cudhy interjected the illegal alien's lawyers opinion in the court's opinion of this little and forgotten case, until it was resurrected on the Internet by OBots some 30 years later. I seriously doubt that the other judges on the panel cared enough about that little interjection because it was meaningless dicta, and that they only agreed on the outcome between them in a sea of cases that were likely on their dockets to give a care.
It sure won't help get a real conservative elected, just get people thinking you like the tinfoil too much.
Like you really care about conservatives getting...naw I don't think so.
I go further than that. As far as I'm concerned, the whole Judicial barrel is rotten. It yields mostly rotten fruit. You have to pick around in it for awhile to find a Scalia, or a Rehnquist, or a Thomas.
Eisenhower was said to have remarked about Earl Warren: "Biggest damfool mistake I ever made. "