Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/17/8

[Star Traveler]

You said — “Speaking for myself, I do not believe any story that has “AP” on it. It needs corroboration.”

I’ve got two words for that... paranoid, denial... and that might sum up the position of many on this issue... LOL...

[null and void]

If there is one.

[MrB]

maybe the next presidential election it will

This will only be addressed when there is a question about a REPUBLICAN candidate's qualifications.

[Lancey Howard]

"without comment"

Justice Kennedy - - now there's a guy with a spine of steel.

[Tallguy]

The *real problem* is not over, though, and that will require putting laws on the books of the various states to vet candidates as to whether they are qualified under the Constitution and not allow them to be legally placed on the ballot without that proof.

OK then. I'm going to ask the next "next question". What if the several states start to amend their election law -- some will. What if in 4 years Obama cannot run for re-election because of ballot access problems due to his inability to prove N-B citizenship to the satisfaction of 5 or 6 states? Imagine the brouhaha then?

[LS]

HEHEHEH. Not us. Not here.

[battletank]

I realize we are all just paranoid kooks, so please forgive my stupidity, but could you please Mr. All Knowing, provide we kooks with your proof of his Hawaiian birth? Consider it a Christmas present to we lowly peons.

Thanks.

[SkyDancer]

True - if this president was a Republican you better believe that the MSM would be digging on this ... there would be 30 “media investigative” reporters in Hawaii ...

[cripplecreek]

You said — “Or, there could genuinely be nothing to this stuff, as many of us have said for some time. Nahh, that couldn’t be it. USSC has to be corrupt.”


LOL..., you couldn’t be talking about genuine FReepers being considered kooks or conspiracy minded, could you? :-)

Exactly, "he said" because that's the pathetic intellectually dishonest means of debate you geniuses use.

[LS]

“They lack courage” is always a nice fallback. Never can be that there is no substance to a charge. “Lacking courage” is corruption, BTW.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Barack Helmsley Obama says: "We don't show documents. Only the little people have to show documents."

(Leona "Queen of Mean" Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.")

[LS]

So far, not one single official body, including a Republican governor and five Republican USSC justices, has agreed with you.

[LS]

You don’t even take a case that has no merit. Merely to take it gives it credibility.

[Sparko]

bump.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “The problem is - it won’t do any good now ... maybe the next presidential election it will ....”

And that clarifies the “real nature of the problem” ...

You see..., if someone doesn’t care about taking care of it for the future and most of their energy is expended on getting Obama out of office, then they never did care about the “problem” in the first place. The problem is not Obama, it’s the “process” by which Obama got in there. *That* is the problem.

On the other hand, if someone attack the “real problem” as not having anything to do with Obama and having *entirely* to do with a process that has been discovered to be deficient — then — this is the constructive solution to the problem (i.e., the state laws to that effect).

We can tell how many are really interested in *only* Obama versus interested in “the problem” (of the process which is deficient)...

[AmericanVictory]

If it is, it is profoundly disturbing. But the course has not yet fully run.

Someone who can match Soros needs to do some investigating of the leads that exist.

Where is Ross the hoss when the nation needs him?

[battletank]

Maybe you can help? Please inform the rest of us how you know there is no substance to the charge? Obviously, you have proof that others of us have missed.

If not, the fact is that there are a zillion swirling honest questions with no proof to be found. Some of us seemingly care more about upholding the Constitution than others. Apparently.

[LS]

No, the pathetic dishonesty is each time "your position" loses to claim that the other side is either a) gutless, b) corrupt c) stupid.

I predicted last week when the USSC kicked these cases out the next line of attack would be the corrupt/gutless/stupid USSC.

[Jack Black]

it would have been looked at by the Justices.Why do you say that? Four of them voted against the plain meaning of the Second Ammendmnet. Two of them have used foreign laws to justify liberal rulings in the last few years. There are not a solid majority of non-treasonous justices on the SC at this time. It is 4 to 4 with a confused little man in the middle. It is the confused little many who issued these rulings, which I take to mean he is the "swing vote" deciding not to get into this. The SC not picking up a case doesn't mean anything concerning the merits of the case, particularly when it hasn't been heard at any other level. Not one court has bothered to do anything excpet push these aside with procedurals. But the proponents of the "Barry is American" twist this. "The plantiff does not have standing" some how magically equals "Barry was Born in America". Uh, NO. It doesn't. No amount of you, MS-NBC and the AP insisting it does can make that logical leap-of-induction true.

[LS]

It’s not my burden of proof. It’s the plaintiff’s burden of proof, and clearly he didn’t meet it.