Ah — I missed you there, James. Trials are trials and opinions are opinions. Do you disagree with etraveler’s take? Did the four justices, or did they not, offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligability?
Ah — I missed you there, James. Trials are trials and opinions are opinions. Do you disagree with etraveler’s take? Did the four justices, or did they not, offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligability?
I agree with you completely. Trials are indeed trials and opinions are most definitely opinions.
No, I do not disagree with etraveller’s take.
Four justices did indeed offer opinions that would disagree with Obama’s alleged eligiblity. However at the current US Supreme Court, four justices does not a decision make, it takes five, like the current five Justice conservative majority: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas.
What has surprised me is that the Supreme Court operates under the tradition of “the rule of four” when granting Writs of Certiorari (agreeing to hear a case before the full court). With five conservtives on the bench, I wonder why no Obama eligibility case has made it to a hearing before the full Court by being granted a Writ of Certiorari since it only takes four of the Justices to agree to hear a case.