Posted on 03/25/2009 4:01:24 AM PDT by Man50D
Because there's no evidence whatsoever to indicate that anything out of the ordinary happened here. There were some crappy cases, they were dismissed as meritless in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court dinged them, too. Happens all the time, and mere fact that a lawyer who brought the case says something about how the Clerk of Courts must be conspiring to keep her case out of the hands of the Supreme Court isn't enough to make me believe that such shenanigans are, in fact, occuring.
You need to reacquaint yourself with what Taitz is alleging transpired, as well as some of the other lawyers.
This is not a circumstance of a “jilted” lawyer stomping their foot as you seem to suggest.
LJ wasn’t kidding when he said you are well-convinced in your stance. Seeing as that is indeed the case, I won’t bother wasting my time with your arguments.
I’ve stated my thoughts and opinions in response to you, I’ll leave the merits of the individual cases to the judges WHEN THEY’VE ACTUALLY SEEN THEM.
I know my godparents know of this kind of news and they don’t even have Internet service.
Just had to tell somebody this. I just talked to Daughter of Doomonyou (FReeper handle: PearlHarbor2) who is in Washington DC on a trip with some other high schoolers from across the fruited plain. She was very excited. They were in the Senate watching the idiots argue and vote on something that will probably cost us more freedom and Liberty, but she waved to, and got a big smile from John McCain. Then the kids went in and watched the Supreames do thier thing.
PLEASE RESUME NORMAL PROGRAMING.
No? Her case was distributed for conference and her application was denied. So she shows up at a book signing and grills Scalia about her case. He blows her off, and from this (and from the fact that the Supreme Court--shocker--met with the President), she becomes convinced that the Supreme Court and/or its clerks are destroying her filings, tampering with the online docket, and forging the signatures of justices.
This is not rational behavior. If there's something else that she alleges transpired, I'm all ears.
By the way, as I mentioned in another post, if there was merit to any of these cases, why hasn’t the RNC funded them and provided a real attorney?
Or, if you don’t like the RNC—like some people on this thread—how come a good attorney, like Ken Starr or Ted Olson, hasn’t stepped up and ran with these cases himself? There are lots of good lawyers that are conservative; if there was merit to these cases, lawyers would be falling all over themselves to litigate it because it’s a once-in-history case that would give the winning lawyer a multi-million dollar salary in a cushy corner office somewhere.
But that’s not happening. Because these cases are losers.
obumpa
MSM will duck this issue as long as they can with one exception. They will bring it up when some court denies to hear the case over tenuous reasons, which seems to me as cheering the not-to-hear-the-case-decision on part of the MSM.
Very interesting. I didn’t think of that.
Good evening, obamanoid n00b.
No, no, and too late.
I would agree. There has been a wall of silence on this amongst "conservative" media personalities. But G. Gordon Liddy interviewed Orly Taitz on his radio show Monday, and was sympathetic to her cause. It could be that the G-Man interview will prove to be the impetus that will really get the ball rolling.
Nobody wants to be the first penguin off the ice floe...
Why is it so hard to believe that the Obama machine would use an overwhelming force—by threat, intimidation and otherwise—in order to prevent the truth from coming out?
Remember, Obama’s buddies and colleagues include terrorists who have killed innocent people with bombs, white collar offenders such as Rezko, islamic extremists with links to terrorists, not to mention highly questionable and mysterious circumstances such as gay choir members from Obama’s church being shot to death with all the appearance of a coverup.
Why stop when you’re ahead?
It may be that you don’t know the meaning of rational.
Would you like to discuss the concept, and see?
The group mentioned should have been all over this story months ago. Because they collectively aren’t it indicates collusion amoug the groups members.
They have there own agenda and it isn’t what is right for the country.
I consider them to be the conservative inside the beltway elites.
Just keep asking,”What is he Hiding and Why?”
It isn’t about the birth certificat.
It is about allegience to the United States of America. President Obama has already acknowledged being registered as a British citizen by his father, a British citizen, shortly after birth.
That automatically makes Obama ineligible to be President. It is called divided loyalties.
My tagline says it all.
So if Russia passed a law making all Alaskans citizens of Russia, Sarah Palin couldn't run for President?
"Natural born citizen," according to the Supreme Court, means a citizen from birth-- one who is not naturalized. Period.
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.