Ease off Freepers ... She don't know nothing ... nothing ...
/s
We have a Supreme Court nominee who is implicated in helping to prevent disclosure of information pertaining to a President’s eligibility for office, nominated by that President himself. Does this not strike you as a quid pro quo? Dangerous at all?
Apparently not, all you can do is pop on the thread and condemn anyone who has a problem with it by using a leftist term of derision.
Strange. I take it you approve of Kagan.
Oops, sorry, that response was intended for Palmer.
Conspiracy Theory of the Day: Elana Kagan has the goods on the Kenyan, and the Supreme Court seat is just a pay-off...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2564917/posts
Sorry, but as I posted in the other thread, this article really annoys me. Kagan was Solicitor General. The role of the Solicitor General is to represent the United States in all suits brought against it in the Supreme Court.
One can search SCOTUS cases for any and all Solicitors General and find dozens of cases with their names. It’s what the job is.
I am not happy that Kagan will be sitting on the High Court, but that’s a consequence of the ‘08 elections. We should all be sure that the ‘10 elections have a totally different outcome in the House and Senate, so any other Sotomayor’s or Kagan’s never make it to the SCOTUS.
When is this vote? I thought it was this week. We can still Bork her....let’s do it. Wouldn’t that be great if we made her feel confortable about winning and having it in the bag and then she does not get enough votes. That would be awesome!!!!
Ease off Freepers ... She don't know nothing ... nothing ...
Drudge?
bttt