Breaking: Supreme Court Conferring over Obama Eligibility Case Right Now

[goldcatt]

The Supreme Court, like every other court, told you that you are a fucking whacko

It's all about perspective. 0-30 is batting a thousand in some people's minds.

Next up for SCOTUS batting practice according to Whack Nut Daily is the case filed on interpleader, where these nutjobs claimed a retired military officer's imaginary future possible potential "service" is money and the Court must determine whether "Barry Soetoro" or Joe Biden should be the one to get paid.

I kid you not.

 

[Common Sense]

Don't forget the SCOTUS is still pissed off because of the comments Obama made during the State of the Union address last year. Some refuse to attend the speech this year. Maybe pay back time.

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

why cant he disagree with a decision? the USSC has the job security of being appointed for LIFE. thus they do not have to pander or give in to anyone. he didnt personally call people out or bash thier views on life. He saw thought the ruling should have gone one way, (opinion) and the court rules otherwise. Just because hes the president doesnt mean he cant have an opinion.

 

[Coyote]

Don't forget the SCOTUS is still pissed off because of the comments Obama made during the State of the Union address last year. Some refuse to attend the speech this year. Maybe pay back time.

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

Uh, no. Get your facts straight before getting outraged.

In 1988 President Reagan attacked the 1973 Woe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in his 1984 State of the Union address. He also criticized the Supreme Court over a school prayer decision - in his 1988 State of the Union Address.

 

[goldcatt]

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

why cant he disagree with a decision? the USSC has the job security of being appointed for LIFE. thus they do not have to pander or give in to anyone. he didnt personally call people out or bash thier views on life. He saw thought the ruling should have gone one way, (opinion) and the court rules otherwise. Just because hes the president doesnt mean he cant have an opinion.

That would be the whole point of removing the Justices from the partisan political game. So the President or Congress can disagree with anything they say or do and they don't have to listen. It's one hell of an unprofessional and unethical jurist who would compromise their independence or integrity over petty BS that happens in every Congress, every White House, and every Court. And as little as I think of the ethics of two of the Justices currently seated I can assure you even they are not so small as to destroy the system to "get even" for a few words in the never ending interbranch rivalries.

 

[xotoxi]

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

James Madison, the "Father of the U.S. Constitution"

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.[15]

​

 

[goldcatt]

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

Uh, no. Get your facts straight before getting outraged.

In 1988 President Reagan attacked the 1973 Woe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in his 1984 State of the Union address. He also criticized the Supreme Court over a school prayer decision - in his 1988 State of the Union Address.

People forget the Court is not a pawn or a tool, but the third branch of government and charged with checking and balancing the other two. There will always be tension, there will always be squabbles, and there will always be...criticisms.

But why is it a-OK for, say, Boehner to criticize the Executive for decisions with which he disagrees, but not for somebody who's not "their guy" to criticize a SCOTUS decision? And that should be enough to cheerlead for open rebellion and unprofessional behavior on behalf of the Justices, as though they were thin-skinned wusses who can't hold up their branch's integrity against a few spoken words? If I were a Justice, THAT is what I would find most insulting.

Crazy silly hypocrisy going on.

 

[Sheldon]

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

Uh, no. Get your facts straight before getting outraged.

In 1988 President Reagan attacked the 1973 Woe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in his 1984 State of the Union address. He also criticized the Supreme Court over a school prayer decision - in his 1988 State of the Union Address.

People forget the Court is not a pawn or a tool, but the third branch of government and charged with checking and balancing the other two. There will always be tension, there will always be squabbles, and there will always be...criticisms.

But why is it a-OK for, say, Boehner to criticize the Executive for decisions with which he disagrees, but not for somebody who's not "their guy" to criticize a SCOTUS decision? And that should be enough to cheerlead for open rebellion and unprofessional behavior on behalf of the Justices, as though they were thin-skinned wusses who can't hold up their branch's integrity against a few spoken words? If I were a Justice, THAT is what I would find most insulting.

Crazy silly hypocrisy going on.

Well said.

It was always just a ploy to paint Obama in a negative light. Partisanship and rational thought are mutually exclusive.

 

[MaggieMae]

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

why cant he disagree with a decision? the USSC has the job security of being appointed for LIFE. thus they do not have to pander or give in to anyone. he didnt personally call people out or bash thier views on life. He saw thought the ruling should have gone one way, (opinion) and the court rules otherwise. Just because hes the president doesnt mean he cant have an opinion.

He also didn't "badmouth" any one of them. He admonished the decision, period, because it would lead to unfettered and uncontrolled campaign contributions, plus the fact that the decision literally ended any further legitimate debate over campaign finance reform. The fact that Alito was such a verbal supporter of the ruling is what pissed Alito off. He took it Obama's comments personally, which is HIS problem.

 

[goldcatt]

Uh, no. Get your facts straight before getting outraged.

In 1988 President Reagan attacked the 1973 Woe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in his 1984 State of the Union address. He also criticized the Supreme Court over a school prayer decision - in his 1988 State of the Union Address.

People forget the Court is not a pawn or a tool, but the third branch of government and charged with checking and balancing the other two. There will always be tension, there will always be squabbles, and there will always be...criticisms.

But why is it a-OK for, say, Boehner to criticize the Executive for decisions with which he disagrees, but not for somebody who's not "their guy" to criticize a SCOTUS decision? And that should be enough to cheerlead for open rebellion and unprofessional behavior on behalf of the Justices, as though they were thin-skinned wusses who can't hold up their branch's integrity against a few spoken words? If I were a Justice, THAT is what I would find most insulting.

Crazy silly hypocrisy going on.

Well said.

It was always just a ploy to paint Obama in a negative light. Partisanship and rational thought are mutually exclusive.

Lest we all forget, the same people stuffing this garbage down the throats of Wing Nut Daily inhalers are the same people who mounted a full out attack against the Court system in general and SCOTUS in particular for being "unconsitutional", "activist", "usurpers of authority" and accused them over and over of "legislating from the bench". I guess that's not criticism.

Nope, no hypocrisy here.

 

[MaggieMae]

Gee, I notice USArmyRetired is MIA following the predictable decision. I wonder now if he understands this:

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

 

[bodecea]

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

why cant he disagree with a decision? the USSC has the job security of being appointed for LIFE. thus they do not have to pander or give in to anyone. he didnt personally call people out or bash thier views on life. He saw thought the ruling should have gone one way, (opinion) and the court rules otherwise. Just because hes the president doesnt mean he cant have an opinion.

Not this president....he's held to a different standard.

 

[JenT]

Gee, I notice USArmyRetired is MIA following the predictable decision. I wonder now if he understands this:

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

Oh he probably understands it better than you understand this

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."

Or that there is a reason Obama has spent MILLIONS in legal fees to keep his birth certificate buried.

The SCOTUS is probably unwilling to hear the case because they know the chaos that would follow would leave us vulnerable to attack. And the thought of Biden stepping in is probably terrifying even to Justice Roberts.

 

[bodecea]

Gee, I notice USArmyRetired is MIA following the predictable decision. I wonder now if he understands this:

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

Did you seriously....seriously think he would come back to this thread after SCOTUS denied the petition?


Try getting him to give sources for some of the crap he spews....

 

[goldcatt]

Gee, I notice USArmyRetired is MIA following the predictable decision. I wonder now if he understands this:

The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."

Oh he probably understands it better than you understand this

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."

Or that there is a reason Obama has spent MILLIONS in legal fees to keep his birth certificate buried.

The SCOTUS is probably unwilling to hear the case because they know the chaos that would follow would leave us vulnerable to attack. And the thought of Biden stepping in is probably terrifying even to Justice Roberts.

They didn't hear the case because wishful thinking aside, quoting the Bible is not a legal argument.

Try again. Oh wait, they will! With an argument that's even worse and has even less merit. Unripe and total abuse of process.

A first year dental student with half a jailhouse library would know better than to pull this stuff.

ETA: Oh, and since in most of the cases the defendant was awarded legal fees and costs as sanctions, guess who's actually paying those millions to defend these cases?

 

[USArmyRetired]

That's ok. There still is Hollister vs Obama going to the Supreme Court and if that fails, the republicans will start investigations into his eligibility after they are sworn in Jan 4th. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said this will happen.

 

[goldcatt]

That's ok. There still is Hollister vs Obama going to the Supreme Court and if that fails, the republicans will start investigations into his eligibility after they are sworn in Jan 4th. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said this will happen.

Hollister the interpleader case. Yeah, good luck with all that.

Sure, let them hold all kinds of investigations. Public hearings. Full court press on the steps of the Capitol building. Every opinion, news and talk show. Please write him and tell him you will settle for nothing less.

 

[bodecea]

That's ok. There still is Hollister vs Obama going to the Supreme Court and if that fails, the republicans will start investigations into his eligibility after they are sworn in Jan 4th. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said this will happen.

Hollister the interpleader case. Yeah, good luck with all that.

Sure, let them hold all kinds of investigations. Public hearings. Full court press on the steps of the Capitol building. Every opinion, news and talk show. Please write him and tell him you will settle for nothing less.

That will go over SOOOOOOOO Well with the American voter in 2012.

 

[jillian]

That's ok. There still is Hollister vs Obama going to the Supreme Court and if that fails, the republicans will start investigations into his eligibility after they are sworn in Jan 4th. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said this will happen.

Hollister the interpleader case. Yeah, good luck with all that.

Sure, let them hold all kinds of investigations. Public hearings. Full court press on the steps of the Capitol building. Every opinion, news and talk show. Please write him and tell him you will settle for nothing less.

That will go over SOOOOOOOO Well with the American voter in 2012.

let's see them spend 70 million dollars investigating obama the way they investigated a failed land deal...


and ended up with a blue dress for their money.

 

[Luissa]

That's ok. There still is Hollister vs Obama going to the Supreme Court and if that fails, the republicans will start investigations into his eligibility after they are sworn in Jan 4th. Democrat House Majority Whip James Clyburn said this will happen.

I say go for it, it will guarantee an Obama win in 2012. People don't want to see the house waste money on this crap.

 

[goldcatt]

Hollister the interpleader case. Yeah, good luck with all that.

Sure, let them hold all kinds of investigations. Public hearings. Full court press on the steps of the Capitol building. Every opinion, news and talk show. Please write him and tell him you will settle for nothing less.

That will go over SOOOOOOOO Well with the American voter in 2012.

let's see them spend 70 million dollars investigating obama the way they investigated a failed land deal...


and ended up with a blue dress for their money.

If they want to court the whackos and self-implode its their decision to make. Too bad they can't do it on their own dime though. The US Treasury wasn't really intended to provide the masses with comedy hour.