Posted on 02/22/2021 6:46:11 AM PST by C210N
“Judges are constrained to rule on the evidence presented by the parties.”
Perhaps true, but *these* are the same judges that gave a pass to outrageous perjury to the FISA court with NO PENALTY for their friends over at the FBI.
There is NO LONGER a moral reason to follow any law, just reason to avoid penalty, thanks Roberts.
Is SCOTUS pushing the lower court to try the fraud evidence by allowing Amicus Curiae?
Cert. is denied because there is no lower court decision to move up?
That Senate Resolution was a joke. It took the 1798 or whenever "naturalization Act" as defining. What that short-lived act did was declare a legal fiction, a "pretend."
The magic words for legal fiction are "shall be considered as." Even if you aren't, as a matter of law we will declare you are.
The law is full of these. Persons age 26 are considered as children for purpose of certain law. Papers given the post office are pretended to instantly be in the patent office, "shall be considered as received."
And in the 1798 naturalization act, persons born abroad of a citizen father were considered to be natural born citizens. Not that they are, just that as long as the law was in effect, they would be pretended to be.
Fast forward to the Senate resolution. It pretended that the 1798 act wasn't declaring a legal fiction, rather the modern senate took those words as words of definition.
McCain wasn't eligible either.
We've already lost the Ballot Box and the Soap Box.
What's left?
Oy. Read comments later.
No, and no.
Allowing Amicus to file just so opponents can get their word in, if they want. Amicus is/would be filed at SCTOUS, not in any lower court.
If SCOTUS wanted lower court to deal with something new, or to handle in a different way, it would have said so. Instead it said "cert denied." That is not an expression that lower court got it right, only that SCOTUS isn't going to bother itself with the case. It gave a reason. Case is moot. Even if the lower court got it wrong, there is nothing that the court can do about it - moot point.
I disagree with the reason but then I don't expect a body that is literally hallucinatory to make sense.
I LOL at Thomas remark that "unclear rules ... dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections."
He said "dampen."
I think the SCOTUS now is understaffed to the point where the "decisions" are just reading scripts written by white hats, with the task to wake folks up. I saw advice this morning that makes tons of sense - it's NOT a switch that goes from dark to light. No, it is a dimmer switch. Has to be, too many facets that require change.
In the same vein, the current Bidan is a good guy. Or, good guys, as the case may be. He is a well-paid actor, helping folks wake up.
I enjoy seeing all the crumbs, and occasionally find one myself - reading Friday's opinions (there were 2), that were both timestamped. The latter one was at 12:30 PM. I was reading that around 11:30 AM. Same time zone.
And breaks it completely.
In other news, here is an aerial view of JFK's gravesite.
see #50
Sorry, disagree. Trump repaired FISA during his term.
Many things the DS (Deep State) did to eventually snare Patriots have been turned against them.
Think FISA (and secret arrests, to be made public. Soon).
Think FEMA camps (put in place by Clinton, expanded by Trump).
It's official. SCOTUS has been UNpacked - it now consists of One (1) member: Justice Clarence Thomas.
There were FOUR DISSENTING JUSTICES - Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Good list. Many others: Canky and the bent one, Bushes (plural), etc.
Take issue with Barr though. Appearances are deceiving on Bill Barr, he’s a good guy.
I respectfully disagree. The Supremes did not chicken out. The cases were prepared by an inferior legal team. You actually have to have a case if you want to win. Obviously Trump’s lawyers did not.
If that fails, we are sadly on to the final one.
Thanks for that comment. Perhaps my poor layman's reading of today's order list, or not having a source providing how each justice voted, I presumed the dissenter(s) in the order were conclusive of the justices dissenting, and tallied things that way.
I'm searching for another source that lists who dissented. Also, I had thought that only 4 justices were required to hear any of these cases... you imply that it takes a majority of 5.
Thank you.
No. Only ignorant BLM/Antifa use that tactic.
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.