Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Steel

“Robertson’s opinion was ‘frivolous’ and biased:””We call the Court’s attention to our recently filed Rule 28(j) letter. The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.

Next, at App. 208-209 the lower court judge then engages in what has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source. We refer to his statement, which has traveled far and wide and repeatedly on the Internet, that:

The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year- campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”


Not according to a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Judge Robertson was affirmed on appeal.


19 posted on 06/01/2010 7:11:08 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
Not according to a three judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Judge Robertson was affirmed on appeal.

"To paraphrase economist Dr. Walter E. Williams: It would not matter if a majority of the citizens wanted the Constitution ignored and violated, it would still be wrong and against the Rule of Law in this country to allow it to be violated. It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of bias with an extrajudicial source than this statement."

jamese77777777

Yummy!

20 posted on 06/01/2010 7:18:34 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson