BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

[QuickHitCurepon]

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Your presence on the Supreme Court is requested, faggot!

 

[PratchettFan]

Still asking the question was it a 9-0 vote?

What no answer?

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

 

[Vigilante]

Talk about GRABBING AT STRAWS when it comes to the Manchurian muslim's regime when it tries to prosecute someone!

Obama’s absolutely dismal record at the Supreme Court continues as the Court just issued a major ruling against the feds and their unconstitutional exercise of power. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously, 9-0, against Obama just this morning in the case of Bond v. United States. The government tried to use a federal statute against chemical weapons to prosecute a woman who put toxic chemicals on the door handle of a car owned by a woman her husband was having an affair with. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons...

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

5-3 on the validity of the law. No, no major ruling, I did not realize the depth of your misunderstanding. The government prevailed on the only substantive issue in dispute.

Was there ANY 9-0 ruling????? Not your opinion, that's like assholes, everyone has one!

 

[jon_berzerk]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules 9-to-0 Against Barack Obama

Has to do with far right wing prosecutors overstepping the law.

Good for the court.

Vigilante & crew thought it was about Obama, not a test case to strike the Federal law. The narrow ruling led to a deep division in "concurring" opinions. And, of course, prosecution began under Bush II, the case has been before the USSC twice. Only reading the headlines, as Vigilante did, leads to misinterpretation.

it is about obama he currently holds the prezbo chair

his justice department argued the feds case

he could have like others choose not to argue it

but he didnt

 

[Vigilante]

Still asking the question was it a 9-0 vote?

What no answer?

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

Now isn't that like saying it was Bush's economy until Obuma took over and it was STILL Bush's economy?

 

[PratchettFan]

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

it is amazing actually

I's DENIAL...they have to protect Obama at all costs...even their credibility.

No. It's actually just the reverse. You have to blame Obama at all costs. If it rains, it's Obama's fault. He seems to be simultaneously weak and omnipotent. I am always amazed at the how far folks will go, how many facts the will ignore, how many facts they will make up, how many utterly unsupported stories they will take as gospel if only they can blame something on the man. When he leaves office, what will you do for a hobby?

 

[Peach]

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

I was playing games with Vigilante, it was obvious he/she does not understand the decision. I will get serious again. The only point of any legal importance was decided in favor of the US.

 

[Vigilante]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Your presence on the Supreme Court is requested, faggot!

Still sucking Obuma's dick, didn't the Moooch kick you out of the White House?

 

[PratchettFan]

Still asking the question was it a 9-0 vote?

What no answer?

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

Now isn't that like saying it was Bush's economy until Obuma took over and it was STILL Bush's economy?

No. So even when faced with a simple fact you just can't accept it. It just has to be Obama's fault. Can't say I'm surprised. In a way, it's like you people worship the man.

 

[Peach]

Did I, or the article say anything about Bond's claim? I didn't think so either, so you are still blowing smoke up your ass! It was directed to this, if you had the intelligence to read it!

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, criticized the government’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, which was intended to prosecute acts of war, especially terrorism.
Via Reason:

The Obama administration’s “boundless” interpretation of the chemical weapons law, declared the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts, “would transform the statute from one whose core concerns are acts of war, assassination, and terrorism into a massive federal anti-poisoning regime that reaches the simplest of assaults.”

Joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, Roberts found that the federal law simply had no application to “an amateur attempt by a jilted wife to injure her husband’s lover, which ended up causing only a minor thumb burn readily treated by rinsing with water.” The power to prosecute such acts rests entirely in the hands of the states, the Court concluded. “There is no reason to think the sovereign nations that ratified the [Chemical Weapons] Convention were interested in anything like Bond’s common law assault.”
​

Another wooden head!

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

The case started when Bush was President; again, I thought a poster would read something ABOUT the case instead of draw a conclusion from an obviously biased report.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Never forget, everything must always be about Obama and everything must be spun as loss no matter what.

Oh just shut up......
Obama......When will you libs wake to the realization that this is HIS watch?

 

[Vigilante]

it is amazing actually

I's DENIAL...they have to protect Obama at all costs...even their credibility.

No. It's actually just the reverse. You have to blame Obama at all costs. If it rains, it's Obama's fault. He seems to be simultaneously weak and omnipotent. I am always amazed at the how far folks will go, how many facts the will ignore, how many facts they will make up, how many utterly unsupported stories they will take as gospel if only they can blame something on the man. When he leaves office, what will you do for a hobby?

He's only weak with his foreign polices, he's a TYRANT when it comes to the American people!

 

[thereisnospoon]

I wish the court would focus on his co2 emission dictate.

First,someone has to file suit in a federal court.

 

[Peach]

Please moron, you still can't read as the title says the ruling was (that's NINE to 0 ZERO vote) unanimous!

The story only indicates the justices present at the verdict!

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

Let me put this in BOLD so you MIGHT understand what has been written...

IT WAS A 9 (NINE) to NOTHING (0) decision ....THERE WERE NO CONTROLLING OPINIONS....for you, the really stupid, they ALL VOTED alike!

You are making me laugh too much! It was 5-4 on the issue that mattered. The government prevailed. Keep believing it was US v. Obama also; he leaves the White House tomorrow

 

[thereisnospoon]

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

I'd say 9-0 IS controlling.

Whatever you're smoking? CEASE.

I write of the majority opinion, left out the word, so CONs could jump like flies to a sugar bowl. There are TWO opinions, thus, not as united as those who read snippets believe. And the 10th Amendment claim failed. A agree with the decision, DOJ needs to drop prosecution of most of the post 9/11/01 radical legislation.

The case is a 10th Amendment test case, thus, conservatives lost. The Court rejected 10th Amendment arguments, here is some simple background:

<i>Bond v. United States</i> reads statute narrowly ? in light of federalism principles ? and avoids Treaty Clause question

As you create your own reality.

 

[Vigilante]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

I was playing games with Vigilante, it was obvious he/she does not understand the decision. I will get serious again. The only point of any legal importance was decided in favor of the US.

That's NOT what the article is about, is it?

 

[PratchettFan]

I's DENIAL...they have to protect Obama at all costs...even their credibility.

No. It's actually just the reverse. You have to blame Obama at all costs. If it rains, it's Obama's fault. He seems to be simultaneously weak and omnipotent. I am always amazed at the how far folks will go, how many facts the will ignore, how many facts they will make up, how many utterly unsupported stories they will take as gospel if only they can blame something on the man. When he leaves office, what will you do for a hobby?

He's only weak with his foreign polices, he's a TYRANT when it comes to the American people!

Yes. I can see how afraid you are of this great and powerful Obama. You must live in constant fear of your life talking the way you do about such a TYRANT.

 

[Vigilante]

Yes. It was indeed. Now you do understand it was overturning a case that originated under the previous administration? The woman had already been charged and convicted before Obama ever got into the job. You are willing to concede that. Right?

Now isn't that like saying it was Bush's economy until Obuma took over and it was STILL Bush's economy?

No. So even when faced with a simple fact you just can't accept it. It just has to be Obama's fault. Can't say I'm surprised. In a way, it's like you people worship the man.

Or you just throwing others issues in that wasn't posted with that article!

 

[Vigilante]

The three most "liberal" justices, along with the sometimes moderate Kennedy, and the occasionally moderate Roberts ruled against "Obama". More proof Obama is too CONservative.

Actually, these laws, now enforced by the Justice Department were passed under Bush, after 9/11. Glad the Court is taking action to stop the infringement on civil liberties; the House will not, that is known.

The Obama administration stomps on this womans civil liberties, the whole court agrees and you blame Bush ....isn't that precious!

The case started when Bush was President; again, I thought a poster would read something ABOUT the case instead of draw a conclusion from an obviously biased report.

OBL's threats started under Clinton, who let him go when he could have taken him, any comment?

 

[Vigilante]

Theirs is the controlling opinion.

Let me put this in BOLD so you MIGHT understand what has been written...

IT WAS A 9 (NINE) to NOTHING (0) decision ....THERE WERE NO CONTROLLING OPINIONS....for you, the really stupid, they ALL VOTED alike!

You are making me laugh too much! It was 5-4 on the issue that mattered. The government prevailed. Keep believing it was US v. Obama also; he leaves the White House tomorrow

Again you are a stupid bitch, as that had no relevance to what the article is about!