Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Blah blah Not SCotUS/Liberal ActivistFollow

#1 Oct 07 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bloomberg wrote:
Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Steeh wrote.

Today’s court ruling is the first to uphold the constitutionality of the law, which is being challenged in lawsuits filed across the country. A U.S. judge in Virginia has denied a motion to dismiss a claim targeting the law, and a federal judge in Florida said he is inclined to do the same.

Round One: Democrats
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Oct 07 2010 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Good god you lot fight a lot of legal battles. We just throw the government out at the next election and repeal the unwanted laws. Or, like, keep them because they turned out ok after all.
#3 Oct 07 2010 at 4:23 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
15,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Phasellus sed ipsum diam, sit amet aliquet augue. Phasellus eget sem lectus, at condimentum felis. Maecenas a lacus posuere metus vulputate consequat sit amet vel dui. Aliquam erat volutpat. Aenean ipsum ante, egestas ac dapibus in, iaculis sed justo. Quisque at velit eu nulla auctor elementum volutpat et libero. In et tincidunt nisi. Donec nisi risus, cursus vel porttitor sit amet, scelerisque vitae tortor. Ut magna lectus, vestibulum at porta et, scelerisque quis erat. Sed ullamcorper ultrices leo, at iaculis risus mollis et. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Fusce neque turpis, lacinia id laoreet at, eleifend bibendum urna. Mauris diam felis, sagittis quis pretium eget, ultricies aliquet mauris.

Sed laoreet odio ac elit tincidunt laoreet. In quis elit nibh. Vivamus lacus diam, scelerisque quis egestas vitae, pharetra non turpis. Pellentesque ultricies elementum diam, in sagittis nisi feugiat ac. Pellentesque fermentum libero eget lectus venenatis congue. Cras vitae erat ut diam condimentum elementum. Pellentesque eu nisi at dolor scelerisque dictum vitae sollicitudin diam. Mauris tempor interdum tortor, in egestas libero eleifend et. Donec id purus non est condimentum iaculis. Nunc eget orci nisl. Quisque lorem odio, egestas nec hendrerit nec, mollis nec nunc. Curabitur vestibulum mi et neque tincidunt feugiat.

Curabitur in eros ligula, sed porta libero. Morbi sollicitudin ante et nibh sollicitudin tincidunt. Ut vel arcu tellus. Nulla pellentesque sapien quis turpis commodo ullamcorper. Etiam rhoncus tortor at dolor tristique dignissim. Maecenas tempor lorem et arcu consequat eget ullamcorper orci malesuada. Fusce adipiscing ullamcorper arcu quis interdum. Integer mauris mauris, rutrum a tristique a, blandit vitae metus. Proin bibendum fermentum tortor, non commodo orci adipiscing ut. Praesent elementum porttitor adipiscing. Duis dictum metus id nisi scelerisque lacinia fringilla est bibendum. Aliquam felis lorem, auctor et hendrerit at, convallis vel erat. Duis elit dolor, imperdiet vitae lobortis vitae, pellentesque vel turpis. Morbi et nulla in metus tristique fermentum. Pellentesque convallis, sem et commodo tincidunt, sapien massa eleifend tellus, ac blandit dolor felis non nibh. Proin tristique feugiat luctus. Curabitur ornare, nulla eu vestibulum pulvinar, risus odio dapibus sem, in adipiscing lectus eros et ipsum. Ut rutrum, dui eget condimentum bibendum, lectus elit vulputate tellus, eu volutpat libero quam sit amet turpis.

Nulla turpis nunc, sagittis fermentum varius eget, lobortis ac nibh. Curabitur non dolor dolor. Suspendisse et orci massa, at tristique mauris. Nulla facilisis nulla dui, sed condimentum justo. Sed varius gravida adipiscing. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean dapibus tristique odio, sit amet ullamcorper velit pharetra eu. Morbi non fringilla urna. Sed consectetur lectus at libero dignissim rutrum. Phasellus posuere, est nec fringilla interdum, dui massa venenatis mi, nec dictum leo enim vel urna.

Fusce velit enim, semper eu rutrum vel, placerat a nibh. Sed justo mauris, interdum in iaculis at, pulvinar sodales nisl. Sed quis ipsum purus, nec ornare nunc. Aenean posuere condimentum quam quis iaculis. Etiam quis velit mi. Curabitur tristique ligula in nisi auctor vitae sagittis erat lacinia. Etiam ac leo vel enim mattis pellentesque. Donec eros tellus, mattis vel rhoncus eget, aliquet quis ipsum. Nam nec metus ante. Donec faucibus ligula tortor, eget laoreet magna. Nulla bibendum nunc sed dui vulputate ultrices. Aenean gravida, risus nec vestibulum posuere, eros felis sodales arcu, ac bibendum ligula neque eu nunc. Sed quis tortor a risus euismod ornare. Vivamus at augue eu lorem malesuada eleifend sed ac urna. Praesent leo magna, tincidunt ut aliquet et, feugiat a lacus.
#5 Oct 07 2010 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Sweetums wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Hello world! Is here to cancel meals. Phasellus but to the same in diameter, he is amet aliquet Sample. Phasellus eget prefix meaning half a bed, but the Diet and Felis. Maecenas, from the Lake has laid fear love is Consequat consequat or DUI. Was there any other Community. Aeneas him before, open in poverty and want, this data is but the just. But the EU wishes to each there is no element of the volutpat and the author of a free people. In the Ut of Nisus. Until unless laughter, or course of love is porttitor, lives of the crime was tortured. That a great bed, at the gate, and the porch, of the crime any one were a. But ullamcorper avenging a lion, but the laughter of the soft and darts. In this the street of the habitasse dictumst. We not for filthy lacinia laoreet at that, the eleifend to drink in the urn full. Moors, the goddess the cats, the arrows need of the price of any one, avenging aliquet the Moor.

But hatred Welcome to laoreet tincidunt laoreet. In the nibh elit any man. Let us live lakes in diameter, of the crime of life who want, a quiver is not what is discreditable. Pellentesque ultricies element of the goddess, the arrows in the feugiat except AC. WordPress to set free eget congue a bed venomous. Tomorrow of life was that the daylit Diet and the element of. EU unless pellentesque crime has been said but pain of life sollicitudin diam. The Moors the occasion torturer, in the Thinking of poverty and free. Until that is pure and not Diet and arrows. Need of this style now. We hate each, the need nor nor hendrerit, soft even now it is. Be healed, and no, my porch Comments Yet.

Ligula be healed to the masters, but the gate I free. Before the disease sollicitudin sollicitudin tincidunt Add to Favorites. To bow or Product. Events home? Ullamcorper Unseemly to make fit. Read Article pain tortor but the sad digniss. Maecenas, the time and bow We need consequat ullamcorper malesuada orcs. We bow Customer ullamcorper who at times. We mauris the Moors, of Rutrum from the from the sad, blandishments afraid of life. Consequently, her drank the fermentation the torturer, not to make fit orcs Customer in order that. This element of porttitor here. We fear this has been said unless fringilla attendants deal with crime we must drink. This Felis We, and the author of hendrerit at, the valley even was. We elit pain, imperdiet lobort the life of life, beating or what is discreditable. The sicknesses and sad there was not in fear of yeast. Beating the valley, prefix meaning half and advantage of the tincidunt, sapien mass of Thinking of the earth, and blandishments Felis pain: Zen Cart. Consequently, her sad grief feugiat. Be healed to adorn, no EU porch CUSHIONED COUCH, laugh, acted Welcome to hatred of Shem, in the Full eros and him alone. As the shovel, the content block to drink in DUI, bed Consequat elit land, was the volutpat I free EU than is the love what is discreditable.

No disgraceful is now, the arrows the fermentation various needs, the lobort and nibh. Pain will be cured and not the pain. To suspend the mass, and Orcs, but the sad mauris. There is no easy no DUI, but Diet and the just. But different, with child here. Hello world! Is here to cancel meals. Welcome to sad hatred of Aeneas, he is amet Photos quiver EU. The disease does not Link. Consectetur a bed at a free Sample Rutrum. A boat to lay, to fringilla is, there is sometimes, your the mass of venomous, my, a lion was not said, for even the pot.

We wish for, always Rutrum or EU, to please Category Management. On these example the Moors, at times, of darts Support Nisl members. But who the very pure, or to decorate now. Diet and eneus to lay someone shall have arrows. Even a man would, my. Sad ligula be healed unless the author of life in the arrows was attendants deal with. Yea, and the lion, for either they mattis pellentesque. While the masters the land, seeks after rhoncus eget, the aliquet Details. In fact, never before the fear. Want to change the torturer ligula, eget laoreet great. There is no drink now but to the DUI Consequat avenging. Aeneas is Pregnant, But laughter of the porch, nor to lay a data center Felis: LCD Monitor, and drinking is, nor ligula EU is now. But who the torturer by the laughter of euismod adorn. Let us live but by the augu We malesuada Thinking of EU but, and the urn full. This Leo the Great, tincidunt aliquet, and that want to display, from the Lake.
#6 Oct 07 2010 at 4:58 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bloomberg wrote:
Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Steeh wrote.

Today’s court ruling is the first to uphold the constitutionality of the law, which is being challenged in lawsuits filed across the country. A U.S. judge in Virginia has denied a motion to dismiss a claim targeting the law, and a federal judge in Florida said he is inclined to do the same.

Round One Three: Democrats

FTFY
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Oct 07 2010 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's just the warm up. The game doesn't begin until you're in a room with a judge making an actual ruling on the case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 07 2010 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Good god you lot fight a lot of legal battles. We just throw the government out at the next election and repeal the unwanted laws. Or, like, keep them because they turned out ok after all.

Unfortunately we have overlapping, rotating election cycles so it's hard to keep any one faction in or out of power.

And anyways, the judge in this story was nominated by Clinton, so of course he's a liberal shill and an Obama slobberer.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#9 Oct 08 2010 at 3:03 AM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
Debalic wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Good god you lot fight a lot of legal battles. We just throw the government out at the next election and repeal the unwanted laws. Or, like, keep them because they turned out ok after all.

Unfortunately we have overlapping, rotating election cycles so it's hard to keep any one faction in or out of power.

What's up with that? Both sides are always in power somewhere, so both sides get to continually blame the other side for anything going wrong. It's a mess, a mess, I says.
#10 Oct 08 2010 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
What's up with that? Both sides are always in power somewhere, so both sides get to continually blame the other side for anything going wrong. It's a mess, a mess, I says.
You say a mess, politicians say a perfect situation.

Edited, Oct 8th 2010 9:58am by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#11 Oct 08 2010 at 6:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Bloomberg wrote:
Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Steeh wrote.

Today’s court ruling is the first to uphold the constitutionality of the law, which is being challenged in lawsuits filed across the country. A U.S. judge in Virginia has denied a motion to dismiss a claim targeting the law, and a federal judge in Florida said he is inclined to do the same.

Round One Three: Democrats

FTFY


Huh? Those were motions to dismiss the lawsuits filed against the health care law. Those were victories against the health care law, not for it. Even in the case the article talks about, a motion to dismiss was also denied, meaning that a ruling had to be handed down, allowing for appeal to a higher court. The "win" in these cases for the pro-health-care side is if judges find reasons to dismiss them. Every case that isn't dismissed, regardless of ruling is a victory for those opposed to the health care law, since it means they either win, or it gets appealed.

This is also one of the weaker cases. The Florida and especially Virginia cases are much stronger. How this ultimately ends out remains to be seen, but these are really just preliminaries. No one really "wins" at this level. All that's determined is how the arguments shake out and who appeals to the next level.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Oct 08 2010 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
The "win" in these cases for the pro-health-care side is if judges find reasons to dismiss them. Every case that isn't dismissed, regardless of ruling is a victory for those opposed to the health care law, since it means they either win, or it gets appealed.
Either I'm missing something here, or you're kind of oblivious to reality.

Why? Because you just implied that even if the Supreme Court finds in favor of the law, it's still a victory for those who oppose it.

The problem with "dismissed case = win for pro-law" as a standpoint in general, meanwhile, is that even if the case gets dismissed, they'll keep bringing it up - as many times as it takes, regardless of the grounds the cases were dismissed on. See the whole situation with Obama's birth certificate for why.
#13 Oct 09 2010 at 8:55 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,566 posts
Obama isn't american though!
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#14 Oct 10 2010 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
The Repubs that aren't birthers but still spout the "Obama isn't American" line say that, not because they think he was born in Kenya, but because it's absolutely un-American to be a successful lawyer and not be conservative.
#15 Oct 10 2010 at 12:17 PM Rating: Decent
catwho wrote:
The Repubs that aren't birthers but still spout the "Obama isn't American" line say that, not because they think he was born in Kenya, but because it's absolutely un-American to be a successful lawyer and not be conservative.


wut?
#16 Oct 10 2010 at 11:39 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
I'm pretty sure that it's entirely American to be a liberal and a lawyer, 'cause lawyers are slimy motherfuckers
#17 Oct 11 2010 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The "win" in these cases for the pro-health-care side is if judges find reasons to dismiss them. Every case that isn't dismissed, regardless of ruling is a victory for those opposed to the health care law, since it means they either win, or it gets appealed.
Either I'm missing something here, or you're kind of oblivious to reality.


You're missing something.

Quote:
Why? Because you just implied that even if the Supreme Court finds in favor of the law, it's still a victory for those who oppose it.


No. "These cases" are not Supreme Court cases. Hence, it's a "win" as long as the cases result in an appeal. You get that, right? Either side will appeal if they lose, so the case will move on regardless of result. If a case is dismissed for some reason though, then it's done.


I think what you're missing is that those who believe that the mandate to buy health care is unconstitutional "win" by getting their case to the Supreme Court and then winning in that courtroom. Any result which brings them closer to doing that is a "win" along the way. That's why the key to reading that article isn't the result of some district ruling on the issue itself, but on the denials of motions to dismiss the cases. Those are the victories that matter here.

Quote:
The problem with "dismissed case = win for pro-law" as a standpoint in general, meanwhile, is that even if the case gets dismissed, they'll keep bringing it up - as many times as it takes, regardless of the grounds the cases were dismissed on. See the whole situation with Obama's birth certificate for why.


In a broader context, sure. But "dismissed" is a loss for the plaintiff and a win for the defendant, right? Who wins an individual ruling at any court level lower than that at which the issue is expected to be required to be resolved really doesn't matter much. It's something that the masses ohh and ahh about, but at the end of the day, the only court that matters on issues of constitutionality is the Supreme Court.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Oct 11 2010 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
I think I get it. I heard about this strategy in a movie called "Casino," starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

See, what you do is, you make a bet. (In this case, the bet is simply "that our side will win," but it's a bet nonetheless). Next, you wait for the outcome of the bet. If you lose, you don't pay up (In this case, admit that you didn't win). If you win, you win. Under this system, all gbaji has to do is wait until one of the appeals wins, and he wins, because at no point until then does he admit that he lost. Even if the issue is never settled within his lifetime, he still doesn't lose, because someone at some point can still overturn it.

Welcome to gbajiland.
#19 Oct 11 2010 at 5:33 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
I think I get it. I heard about this strategy in a movie called "Casino," starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

See, what you do is, you make a bet. (In this case, the bet is simply "that our side will win," but it's a bet nonetheless). Next, you wait for the outcome of the bet. If you lose, you don't pay up (In this case, admit that you didn't win). If you win, you win. Under this system, all gbaji has to do is wait until one of the appeals wins, and he wins, because at no point until then does he admit that he lost. Even if the issue is never settled within his lifetime, he still doesn't lose, because someone at some point can still overturn it.



Huh? Do you have any clue how our judicial process works? When you're challenging the constitutionality of a US federal law, it can only be resolved at the Supreme Court level. In this case there is no other end point (baring the law itself being repealed in the mean time). Who wins or loses the interim cases doesn't really matter at all. As a plaintiff, you "win" this kind of case by not having your case dismissed and appealing it to the next level. That's all you care about because no ruling at a lower level can actually have any effect on the law in question.

Well. I suppose a district or appellate court could rule against the law and the government could choose not to appeal, but given what's on the line, I don't see that happening. Both sides will appeal any decision. Ergo, the individual decisions prior to the Supreme Court don't really matter.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Oct 11 2010 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
I think I get it. I heard about this strategy in a movie called "Casino," starring Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci.

See, what you do is, you make a bet. (In this case, the bet is simply "that our side will win," but it's a bet nonetheless). Next, you wait for the outcome of the bet. If you lose, you don't pay up (In this case, admit that you didn't win). If you win, you win. Under this system, all gbaji has to do is wait until one of the appeals wins, and he wins, because at no point until then does he admit that he lost. Even if the issue is never settled within his lifetime, he still doesn't lose, because someone at some point can still overturn it.



Huh? Do you have any clue how our judicial process works? When you're challenging the constitutionality of a US federal law, it can only be resolved at the Supreme Court level. In this case there is no other end point (baring the law itself being repealed in the mean time). Who wins or loses the interim cases doesn't really matter at all. As a plaintiff, you "win" this kind of case by not having your case dismissed and appealing it to the next level. That's all you care about because no ruling at a lower level can actually have any effect on the law in question.

Well. I suppose a district or appellate court could rule against the law and the government could choose not to appeal, but given what's on the line, I don't see that happening. Both sides will appeal any decision. Ergo, the individual decisions prior to the Supreme Court don't really matter.
Except the very fact that they DID rule in favor of the bill, and that the case has now been appealed, affects the higher court's future decision. Do you know how the judicial process works? If the lower courts "don't really matter," why do we have them?

Here's a hint: it's to handle cases the Supreme Court doesn't have time to deliberate, which is basically all of them. When a case reaches an appeals court, or in fact the SCOTUS, they are entitled to chuck it straight out based on a brief review of the lower court's decision. So yes, every court decision matters, and any victory is a victory, not just one in the SCOTUS.
#21 Oct 11 2010 at 6:05 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Except the very fact that they DID rule in favor of the bill, and that the case has now been appealed, affects the higher court's future decision. Do you know how the judicial process works? If the lower courts "don't really matter," why do we have them?


We have them to settle minor issues which affect one area of the country or one aspect of an issue affecting us. Broader issues (like the massive extension of the commerce clause represented in this case) will inevitably be decided at the Supreme Court level. As I said before "in cases like these" the lower court levels are really just preliminaries that allow each side to clarify their position before the real event occurs.

Quote:
Here's a hint: it's to handle cases the Supreme Court doesn't have time to deliberate, which is basically all of them. When a case reaches an appeals court, or in fact the SCOTUS, they are entitled to chuck it straight out based on a brief review of the lower court's decision. So yes, every court decision matters, and any victory is a victory, not just one in the SCOTUS.


They don't do that capriciously or randomly though. What you don't seem to be aware of is that the lower courts will almost always simply rule in favor of how previous precedent seems to go. They don't tend to mark out the boundaries of constitutionality, only rule in accordance with previous rulings. Previous rulings have allowed the commerce clause to give congress the power to impose economic requirements, so they ruled that way in this case. No one is surprised by this result. The argument of the plaintiffs is that in this case, the commerce clause treads too far into the liberty of private citizens. Lower courts are unlikely to make that call, for exactly the reason that they aren't structured (nor expected) to do so.


As you say, their job is to weed out the cases which clearly fall within the bounds of existing legal precedent. It is not to determine where a new boundary point should be. District and appellate courts rule in an almost formulaic manner. There are rarely surprises there.

Edited, Oct 11th 2010 5:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Oct 11 2010 at 10:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
They don't do that capriciously or randomly though.



Except when they're deciding on whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, amirite?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#23 Oct 11 2010 at 10:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,566 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
They don't do that capriciously or randomly though.



Except when they're deciding on whether or not Obama was born in Kenya, amirite?



zing /thread
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#24gbaji, Posted: Oct 13 2010 at 6:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wait. The Supreme Court has refused to hear a case challenging Obamas natural born citizen qualification to be president? When did that happen?
#25 Oct 13 2010 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
On Dec 8, 2008, The Chicago Tribune wrote:
UPDATE: The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Oct 13 2010 at 7:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
On Dec 8, 2008, The Chicago Tribune wrote:
UPDATE: The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.


Ah. I'd forgotten about that one!

That was a pretty flawed case anyway. It was based on the argument that simply having a Kenyan citizen as a father (who was then a British subject) prevented Obama from being a natural born US citizen. Which is clearly not true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 342 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (342)