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

[Peach]

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

You do not understand the case, I apologize for thinking you did. The applicability of the law was not the issue, the validity of the law was. 5-3 on the only issue that mattered. Roberts did go into detail about her injuries, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to strike the law. Another laughable comment from CJ Roberts:

“The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water.”

ONE last time, was there a 9-0 vote....yes or no!

5-4 in favor of the government; and Bush II's AG that began the prosecution. You need to read beyond the extremist right wing headlines.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Was it not you who claimed "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?"
Ignoring for the moment that the rest of the justices must have voted with those "liberal" justices because he isn't conservative enough, doesn't your statement say that those justices voted not on the case but rather on Obama?

 

[Peach]

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.

Vigilante still thinks the case was US V. Obama, it was funny, getting sad.

 

[Vigilante]

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.

You must have grown up a fan of A. Hitler.... nice to know you have no principles!

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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?

If you truly believe that this case is tied to a previous one, you are truly an "insider."

 

[Vigilante]

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.

Vigilante still thinks the case was US V. Obama, it was funny, getting sad.

Again, a failure to read the article....What flavor Kool-Aid have you been sipping?

 

[Peach]

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

You do not understand the case, I apologize for thinking you did. The applicability of the law was not the issue, the validity of the law was. 5-3 on the only issue that mattered. Roberts did go into detail about her injuries, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to strike the law. Another laughable comment from CJ Roberts:

“The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water.”

ONE last time, was there a 9-0 vote....yes or no!

9-0 to overturn the conviction, 5-4 as the reason why. The government prevailed on the primary issue. The prosecution, which began under Bush, was determined to be unfounded. The majority opinion, and the concurring opinion are markedly different. Obama won on the issue DOJ wanted to win; another waste of money by Baby Bush began the whole process.

 

[Vigilante]

You do not understand the case, I apologize for thinking you did. The applicability of the law was not the issue, the validity of the law was. 5-3 on the only issue that mattered. Roberts did go into detail about her injuries, Scalia, Thomas and Alito wanted to strike the law. Another laughable comment from CJ Roberts:

“The chemicals that Bond used are easy to see, and Haynes was able to avoid them all but once. On that occasion, Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn on her thumb, which she treated by rinsing with water.”

ONE last time, was there a 9-0 vote....yes or no!

9-0 to overturn the conviction, 5-4 as the reason why. The government prevailed on the primary issue. The prosecution, which began under Bush, was determined to be unfounded. The majority opinion, and the concurring opinion are markedly different. Obama won on the issue DOJ wanted to win; another waste of money by Baby Bush began the whole process.

What do you know...exactly what was printed! BTW, I LOVE being in your signature, ESPECIALLY when even you here said I was correct!.... BOOKMARKED!!!

 

[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. I agree with the decision, DOJ needs to drop over 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

You have yourself all a dither.
You have no clue what is going on here.
Bond v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[Vigilante]

Profile

Senator Ted Cruz Government Official · 713,344 Likes
· 8 hrs ·








Today&#8217;s &#8234;#*SCOTUS&#8236; ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration&#8217;s argument for increased federal power.

The Court held that the statute implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty cannot be interpreted to cover local criminal conduct, a power which our Constitution reserves to the States. As the Framers wisely understood when they ratified the Tenth Amendment, the division of power between the States and the federal government is essential to the preservation of liberty.

I applaud the Court for unanimously enforcing this limit on federal power.

 

[Peach]

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.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Was it not you who claimed "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?"
Ignoring for the moment that the rest of the justices must have voted with those "liberal" justices because he isn't conservative enough, doesn't your statement say that those justices voted not on the case but rather on Obama?

Obviously joking, but Vigilante and yourself do not see it. Why do you think I noted the biased site first? TO CLUE VIGILANTE in the story was not as the headlines inferred. I put Obama in quotation marks also; the case began when Bush was President. 5-4 as I wrote, on the only point of law actually contested.

 

[Peach]

Profile

Senator Ted Cruz Government Official · 713,344 Likes
· 8 hrs ·


Today&#8217;s &#8234;#*SCOTUS&#8236; ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration&#8217;s argument for increased federal power.

The Court held that the statute implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty cannot be interpreted to cover local criminal conduct, a power which our Constitution reserves to the States. As the Framers wisely understood when they ratified the Tenth Amendment, the division of power between the States and the federal government is essential to the preservation of liberty.

I applaud the Court for unanimously enforcing this limit on federal power.

Cruz isn't sharp enough to be a pencil eraser, he does not understand the decision upheld the applicability of the Federal laws (.) the Court held only the acts which gave rise to the conviction were not serious to violate the law. And the Court refused to consider the only substantive issue. Do not depend on openly biased "news sources" for hard news. I do not depend on anything found on "ThinkProgress" without looking at many other sources. I KNOW ThinkProgress is biased.

 

[Vigilante]

Profile

Senator Ted Cruz Government Official · 713,344 Likes
· 8 hrs ·


Today’s &#8234;#*SCOTUS&#8236; ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s argument for increased federal power.

The Court held that the statute implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty cannot be interpreted to cover local criminal conduct, a power which our Constitution reserves to the States. As the Framers wisely understood when they ratified the Tenth Amendment, the division of power between the States and the federal government is essential to the preservation of liberty.

I applaud the Court for unanimously enforcing this limit on federal power.

Cruz isn't sharp enough to be a pencil eraser, he does not understand the decision upheld the applicability of the Federal laws (.) the Court held only the acts which gave rise to the conviction were not serious to violate the law. And the Court refused to consider the only substantive issue. Do not depend on openly biased "news sources" for hard news. I do not depend on anything found on "ThinkProgress" without looking at many other sources. I KNOW ThinkProgress is biased.

Let's see not as sharp as an eraser......here's his LAW BACKGROUND

He served as Solicitor General of Texas from 2003 to May 2008, after being appointed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.[2] Between 1999 and 2003, Cruz served as the director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission, an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the United States Department of Justice, and as Domestic Policy Advisor to U.S. President George W. Bush on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign. Cruz was also an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin, where he taught U.S. Supreme Court litigation, from 2004 to 2009.

Mind giving us YOUR background....I'm sure it must be more impressive if he isn't as sharp as an eraser!....Waiting with baited breath, or shall you become MY SIGNATURE???

 

[jon_berzerk]

The Convention provides for implementation by each
ratifying nation &#8220;in accordance with its constitutional
processes.&#8221; Art. VII(1), 1974 U. N. T. S. 331. As James
Madison explained, the constitutional process in our
&#8220;compound republic&#8221; keeps power &#8220;divided between two
distinct governments.&#8221; The Federalist No. 51, p. 323 (C.
Rossiter ed. 1961).If section 229 reached Bond&#8217;s conduct,
it would mark a dramatic departure from that constitutional structure and a serious reallocation of criminal law
enforcement authority between the Federal Government
and the States. Absent a clear statement of that purpose,
we will not presume Congress to have authorized such a
stark intrusion into traditional state authority.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Profile

Senator Ted Cruz Government Official · 713,344 Likes
· 8 hrs ·








Today’s &#8234;#*SCOTUS&#8236; ruling in Bond v. United States is an important victory for federalism. For the tenth time since January 2012, the Court unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s argument for increased federal power.

The Court held that the statute implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty cannot be interpreted to cover local criminal conduct, a power which our Constitution reserves to the States. As the Framers wisely understood when they ratified the Tenth Amendment, the division of power between the States and the federal government is essential to the preservation of liberty.

I applaud the Court for unanimously enforcing this limit on federal power.

an important victory for federalism

it certainly is

 

[Peach]

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?

If you truly believe that this case is tied to a previous one, you are truly an "insider."

Again, and again, I have posted to links to read about the case, which started long before Obama took office:

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, not just states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault using a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that this application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on Congress' statutory implementation of treaties. Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.

 

[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?

If you truly believe that this case is tied to a previous one, you are truly an "insider."

Again, and again, I have posted to links to read about the case, which started long before Obama took office:

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that individuals, not just states, may have standing to raise Tenth Amendment challenges to a federal law. The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act for a local assault using a chemical irritant. The defendant argued, in part, that this application of the law violated the Constitution's federalism limitations on Congress' statutory implementation of treaties. Having decided the defendant could bring the constitutional challenge, the Court remanded the case without deciding the merits of the claims.

And YOUR law credentials are...... One last chance!

 

[Peach]

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.

Vigilante still thinks the case was US V. Obama, it was funny, getting sad.

Again, a failure to read the article....What flavor Kool-Aid have you been sipping?

Vigilante, accept that you were mislead by a poorly written article by a site with clear bias. The decision was 5-4 on the issue the impacted conservatives: the applicability of Federal law upon states. The government PREVAILED. There was a majority opinion, and a minority concurrence. READ them, and some light may get through a sliver that must exist in the vise your mind is trapped in. And the decision was on a case begun by Bush II's DOJ, the end.

 

[Vigilante]

Vigilante still thinks the case was US V. Obama, it was funny, getting sad.

Again, a failure to read the article....What flavor Kool-Aid have you been sipping?

Vigilante, accept that you were mislead by a poorly written article by a site with clear bias. The decision was 5-4 on the issue the impacted conservatives: the applicability of Federal law upon states. The government PREVAILED. There was a majority opinion, and a minority concurrence. READ them, and some light may get through a sliver that must exist in the vise your mind is trapped in. And the decision was on a case begun by Bush II's DOJ, the end.

AND YOUR CREDETIALS BITCH, OR YOU HAVE NO FUCKING STANDING HERE!

You call Cruz NOT SHARP....so what is SHARPER about you, or just another fucked up, scumbag liberal bitch that needs to make herself important to other liberals?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Vigilante sees what he wants to see, which is what he hopes is reinforcement for his strange world view.