Posted on 10/29/2009 10:19:10 AM PDT by Elderberry
Judge Carter Ruling on MTD
What’s your point?
Sorry, you're mistaken. Those that defend this marxist, kenyan usurper are the suckers.
But she’s a humble ass, not an arrogant one.
I'd like someone to do a first principles explanation, without refering to 20th Century case law, about how the Courts do not have jurisdiction under Article III, section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
This is certainly a controversy. The Court apparently agreed that it involves the United States, since defendants were represented by DoJ attorneys.
AFAIK, the "particularized injury", in order to have a "case", that keeps the general citizenry from having standing, as opposed to just injury, is a 20th Century innovation. IOW, I'm interested in original undestanding or meaning of Art III, section 2.
Since when do Conservatives advocate rewriting the Constitution?
My point is that if you are enjoying the freedom to watch Beck, you are not exactly living in the equivalent of the USSR.
That is a stretcher!!!
Do you think the WH won’t keep threatening FOX news and that they aren’t already working to get him off the air? Where have you been? We’re not there YET, but we are WELL on our way... In fact, your ticket has been punched and we are all on an express train with NO STOPS between here and there unless SOMEONE in Washington finds a backbone to demand an END to this Marxist takeover.
Have you perused the 1,990 page Health-care Bill yet? Let me know what you think about our not living in a psuedo-Soviet heading country with this current administration and Congress after you read what’s in THAT bill!
And a candidate on the ballot in even one state would have standing to sue in state court if the laws of that state permitted such a suit (as many states do).
That was done, and rejected on "standing" and "ripeness". I understand the ripeness part, there is no injury for someone just being nominated by a party, eligible or not. Perhaps between the election and inauguration would be the "proper" time, although that was attempted as well.
“Actually as far as any candidate with their name on enough ballots to POSSIBLY win would make sense, would it not?” I have nothing to add other than apply your sycophantic reasoning to the cxase of Calero being on ballots and imagine that such a usurper actually won a few electoral votes. Would the voters in the states where an ineluigible candidate grabbed electoral votes have the right to challenge an illicit election? ... And wipe that brown off your face, it’s unbecoming.
Orly is also threatening a boycott of Fox. Maybe she really is an obot agent.
The only way to remove Obama after he was sworn in is through constitutional measures ie impeachment which many of us have said all along. Also folks,ready to start working towards GOP victory in 2010? We can do this. Also don’t send anymore money to Orly. Send it to the RNC.
Is there an upper limit to the amount of personal abuse we are expected to take from MHGinTN and a few others?
Here, once again, he engages in malicious personal attacks against someone *for simply explaining the law*, law that was confirmed in the federal judge's ruling. But MHGinTN doesn't want to hear it so it doesn't matter. He feels the right to start abusing fellow freepers.
This has gone on with him over and over and over for months. Where's the upper limit on that?
Judging from the quality of your posts? I doubt it.
Your comebacks are so childish
And your's give a whole new meaning to the term childish. As well as asinine.
What a stupid question! Go back to smarmy lurk mode, you’re a joke. [[And for reference, consider the prohibition Act and subsequent revocation. Sheesh]]
Nope, this is a final order, appealable as of right under 28 U.S.C. 1291. If Orly or Kreep files a timely Notice of Appeal, the Ninth Circuit has to rule on the appeal one way or the other (although I am betting on "affirmed").
You may find out soon enough ... and I hope you enjoy the Freerepublic you’re building.
She's trying to figure out how to spin this into a victory.
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.