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

To: philman_36

That wasn’t the issue before the court and thus why I said that the Judges probably didn’t read the brief by the APPELLENT who was THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Look, SERIOUSLY, you are doing your cause disservice by refusing to understand Wong. Understand what it stands for and try to find reasons that could be argued as to why it should be overturned.

It was a BAD CASE. BAD LAW. BAD DECISIONS. BAD JUDGES.

Anyone who goes before a court and says that Wong follows Vattel will just look like an idiot. The lower court even mentions that they can’t follow Vattel.

Their decision AFFIRMED WITHOUT EXCEPTION.


900 posted on 01/26/2012 3:03:42 PM PST by RummyChick (It's a Satan Sandwich with Satan Fries on the side - perfect for Obama 666)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies ]


To: RummyChick
It was a BAD CASE. BAD LAW. BAD DECISIONS. BAD JUDGES.
Yet the decision stands, doesn't it.
903 posted on 01/26/2012 3:10:34 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | View Replies ]

To: RummyChick

your understanding of Wong is wong


911 posted on 01/26/2012 3:25:00 PM PST by rolling_stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | 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