[SteveH]

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point entirely.

james777’s logic— as best I can reconstruct it— is as follows:

SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of law within the US.

therefore

No one can order SCOTUS to do anything.

[check: I hope we all agree on this]

Now: what is wrong with the above logic??

I invite you to go back and think about what I wrote from a logical perspective— and not about whatI appear (to you personally) to be doing. IOW, for logic’s sake, it is easier to think logically when one entirely removes the personal and the incidental (eg you appear - he appears - she appears - they appear) from one’s thinking.

[Star Traveler]

I know that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court to do something — however — it’s very clear that certain FReepers are of the opinion that “legal or not” — someone *is ordering* the Supreme Court to cover up things about Obama’s qualifications. That much I can say for sure (i.e., that I see, directly, that FReepers believe and say this...).

So, while I would agree with you that no one can “legally” order the Supreme Court do something that they think is politically expedient (no matter what legal decisions they think are right) — that leaves the door *wide open* for those who believe the Supreme Court is “illegally in collusion” with those who wish to cover up Obama’s lack of qualifications to be President of the United States per the Constitution...

Again, I agree with your logic and even go further than the “legal” part and say they are not going to be influenced illegally either (no matter what a certain number of FReepers are claiming...).

[Star Traveler]

Oh..., by the way, if you’re not careful, you’ll be put in the same category as what the other poster was put into..., in post #89... LOL...

[jamese777]

Sorry, I think you may have missed my point entirely.

james777’s logic— as best I can reconstruct it— is as follows:

SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of law within the US.

therefore

No one can order SCOTUS to do anything.

[check: I hope we all agree on this]

Now: what is wrong with the above logic??

I invite you to go back and think about what I wrote from a logical perspective— and not about whatI appear (to you personally) to be doing. IOW, for logic’s sake, it is easier to think logically when one entirely removes the personal and the incidental (eg you appear - he appears - she appears - they appear) from one’s thinking.

---

Perhaps you could provide an historical example of when the Supreme Court was ordered to take an action by some external authority over the course of the last 220 years of American history? That would assist a great deal with the logical argument you are attempting to make.