Posted on 12/29/2011 4:22:24 PM PST by Smokeyblue
Newt Gingrich routinely fields questions during his campaign stops and during the event showcasing Art Laffer's endorsement, a woman who had been sititing on stage behind him asked Gingrich for clarification about President Obama's country of birth.
SNIP
"All I can report is the state of Hawaii has certified that he was born there," Gingrich continued.
Gesturing to his wife beside him, he said, "We both were with a taxi driver one day who showed us the hospital. There is every reason to believe he is a citizen of the United States. The fact that he's already a terrible president, we don't have to go beyond that and try to find something beyond that."
(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...
Why wouldn’t Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves? Their job was at stake so they very clearly had an ethical obligation to recuse themselves. So why wouldn’t they do it - especially if there wasn’t even one justice who would have voted to hear the case anyway, as you claim?
You just can’t seem to get past the argument from authority: “They all say it so it must be so. Nyeah!”
I actually feel sorry for you. I’ve addressed so much content - such important legal principles - and you’re too impotent to deal with them. It’s got to be as frustrating to you as it is to me.
What they all agreed on was that the subject is either no plaintiff’s business, that every moment in time is either too early to do anything or too late, that Congress’ results can never be ruled unconstitutional (because whatever Congress decides is “political” so it can’t be ruled on by the judiciary), or that not enough is at stake.
Yes, they all unanimously agree to all that. To have such unanimous agreement that the Constitution cannot possibly be obeyed is disturbing. Very disturbing.
Dude, you are themandotcom. Love your posts!
Thank you, as always, for your posts.
Happy New Year.
Okay, thanks. I used to discuss this stuff at Hot Air, (and Ace of Spades) but I've taken to avoiding that website because I often find myself disgusted with Either Allahpundit's or Ed Morissey's positions on something and I don't want to give them the traffic. Also I found it quite annoying that you can't post images so as to better make a point.
An Ocean of text is annoying.
I have posted comments on Yahoo news before. It is an idiotorium, and not worth the trouble. One might just as well scream deprecations at monkeys.
They know he's an idiot but to admit it in the slightest degree demonstrates them to have had tainted judgement for supporting him in the first place. Admitting he is a fool is the same as admitting THEY were fools. He is, and they are.
You'll get lots of “likes” for your NBC brilliance.
I have not the slightest use for "FaceBook."
If this were true, the outcry regarding Obama's birth certificate would not have occurred until AFTER the election. It began as soon as Obama was designated the nominee.
You are so nutty that I wouldn't be surprised if you are Dr. Conspiracy (Whose @ss I repeatedly whipped in head to head comments on his website last year) or perhaps one of the flies buzzing about his open sewer.
Here is a picture of the nut:
“Your Comment is awaiting Moderation” is often applied by the Nut when proven wrong.
Same with me.
Somebody needs to make a t-shirt showing the separate layers of Obama’s latest BC forgery.
Dare them to claim copyright infringement. lol
butterdezillion wrote: “Why wouldn’t Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves? Their job was at stake”
That’s crank nonsense.
butterdezillion wrote: “I actually feel sorry for you. I’ve addressed so much content - such important legal principles - and you’re too impotent to deal with them. It’s got to be as frustrating to you as it is to me.”
But you have that pleasant world inside your head, where you get to determine all the facts, all the laws, and decide what all the courts rule and why. When Newt Gingrich said that there is every reason to believe Barack Obama was born in the U.S., he was talking about reality.
DiogenesLamp wrote: “You are so nutty that I wouldn’t be surprised if you are Dr. Conspiracy (Whose @ss I repeatedly whipped in head to head comments on his website last year) or perhaps one of the flies buzzing about his open sewer.”
You are a hoot. I write, “The forums in which birthers can claim wins are the ones where they imagine themselves — pardon the cliche — judge, jury, and executioner.” And you come right back with the demo.
Contentless post. A question is “crank nonsense”.
Sotomayor and Kagan violated judicial ethics when they refused to recuse themselves from a case in which their own positions and salaries were at issue. That’s a huge ethics breach that should result in them being disbarred, if it was any other court. This isn’t piddles.
And you won’t even venture a guess as to why they committed those ethics breaches when there was supposedly no danger whatsoever that the case would be heard even without them acting as foxes guarding the henhouse. I guess they just violate ethics for the fun of it, huh? If so, that makes them just as criminal as if they violated ethics to cover their own huge posteriors - since they KNOW Obama is not eligible.
Unfortunately for them, their refusal to recuse themselves is one fig leaf that only shows their posteriors are too big to be covered. The whole rest is sticking out in full view. The emperor and his communist judges are even worse than naked - they have one fig leaf, proving that even they know they are naked.
Just one other thing. The case where Sotomayor and Kagan were specifically asked to recuse themselves was the Hollister case - in which Hollister was granted standing but Judge Robertson refused to acknowledge that in contract law “obligations” include contractual obligations and not just literal dollar bills. That case asked the court to specifically say who is Constitutionally able to “act as President” since noon of Jan 20, 2009 - Barack Obama, or Joe Biden. If the President elect “failed to qualify” by then the only person Constitutionally authorized to “act as President” would be Joe Biden (if it was assumed that the illegal ballot counting was still considered legal).
If Joe Biden was the only person Constitutionally authorized to “act as President” after noon on January 20, 2009, then neither Sotomayor nor Kagan could even BE SCOTUS justices at this point because they were not appointed by Joe Biden. This case went right to the heart of whether Sotomayor and Kagan can continue to act as SCOTUS justices. Their jobs were ABSOLUTELY at stake. That is the hard, cold fact.
The only judicial ethics breach that could be more blatant is if a judge presided over her own murder trial.
If this was a basketball game this would be the equivalent of a player taking a hatchet to an opposing team member. The most flagrant foul you could possibly imagine. If a basketball player did anything this flagrant they would be out for the season.
You can call it “crank nonsense” if you want, but you’d be hard pressed to find anything more flagrant than this in even the most corrupt banana republic out there. If you will excuse this you will excuse anything, which is a terrible expose’ of where you’re coming from.
Sotomayor and Kagan violated judicial ethics when they refused to recuse themselves from a case in which their own positions and salaries were at issue. That’s a huge ethics breach that should result in them being disbarred, if it was any other court."It resulted in so such thing when it was another court. In the course of the appeal of Purpura v Sebelius to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the plaintiffs moved for the recusal of Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, on the same grounds. After Judge Greenaway denied the motion, the plaintiffs moved for an En Bank Court to recall and vacate the denial. They got a response from the Court sitting En Bank: denied again. No dissent.
Chief Justice of United States John G. Roberts recently wrote about recusal and his associate justices' ethics. As reported in the Wall Street Journal:
"I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted," the chief justice wrote. "They are jurists of exceptional integrity and experience whose character and fitness have been examined through a rigorous appointment and confirmation process."John G. Roberts was not an Obama nominee. Far from it.
butterdezillion wrote:
And you won’t even venture a guess as to why they committed those ethics breaches when there was supposedly no danger whatsoever that the case would be heard even without them acting as foxes guarding the henhouse.I told you: because it's crank nonsense. If you want me to "venture a guess", I'd say that the birther petitions don't get past the first level of filtering by the law clerks, so the justices never discuss them. The conference materials are closed so we can't know for sure. The Chief Justice would know, and he says his associate justices "are jurists of exceptional integrity" worthy of his trust to determine when recusal is warranted.
butterdezillion wrote:
Unfortunately for them, their refusal to recuse themselves is one fig leaf that only shows their posteriors are too big to be covered.No, butterdezillion, your smears are of no significance to the justices. You've defamed and lied about judges and other government officers over and over and over. It's what you do. You're underlying theory is crank nonsense, so it always loses, and when it does you espouse yet more crank nonsense to fold more honorable public servants into the evil conspiracy in your head.
The Normalcy Bias is a force much stronger than I ever realized. The past few years have proven that to my great dismay, and unfortunately, "conservatives" are not immune to it at all.
Should a judge be able to decide whether it is lawful for her to have her own job? Yes, or no? Should a judge be able to preside over her own murder charges? Yes, or no?
Once again you are arguing from authority: the judges say it so it must be right.
I’m saying that if Roberts or other judges have no problem with a judge presiding over her own murder charges it would be an absolute indication that either Roberts is brain-dead or somehow compromised. And a judge refusing to recuse herself when the Constitutionality of her own position is at stake is as close to that level of ethics breach as we’re ever gonna get. If Roberts is OK with that, it should tell the whole world that Roberts is severely compromised.
And now we know who Scalia’s implied hold-out is.
The bigger question for us all at this point should be: what are Obama’s handlers holding over John Roberts, and what communications did they make to hold it over him?
And this IS a matter of national security, because if Roberts is compromised, Obama’s handlers themselves will determine EVERY DECISION that SCOTUS makes. They will have effectively taken over the entire judiciary, just as they effectively took over the whole media through their threats - which had to have been something other than FCC harassment, since the media heads reporting the threats would result in Obama not having control over the FCC which would make the threats vain.
We’ve seen the rule of law totally destroyed, and people are wondering how it could happen. I think the answer is right in front of our faces if we only have the honesty to stare it in the eyeballs.
You obviously don't have much familiarity with Newt Gingrinch. He and reality are passing acquaintances. He has a personality which cycles repeatedly between insanity and lucidity. A pillar of Stability he is not.
Those of us that have actually STUDIED the matter are undecided as to where Barack was actually born, with Hawaii barely edging out Canada or Washington state as to the likely place.
Newt espouses the certainty of a fool, and with the same lack of knowledge.
The amusement is reciprocal. Wise men and fools laugh at each other, but for different reasons. Your argument is an indictment of the courts, not a refutation of anything else.
Conservatives believe our court system has become corrupt due to the influence of Liberal President's appointment of Liberal Judges. Opposition to Roe v Wade is BASED on the idea that the courts have NOT been truthful. You simply point out more evidence that they need to be reconstituted with more honorable people. (Fewer liars)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.