• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So what will the SCOTUS so on the 5th?

MrVicchio said:
And they, as expected, rejected the case.
Click to expand...

Good for them, like I predicted "Birthgate" is shown how stupid it really was.

Carry on Obama is a natural born U.S. citizen.
 
jfuh said:
You going to call out vicchio on his conspiracy fantasy and be the "fair and balanced" you so claim to be?
Click to expand...

Ummm, already did. You gonna try going back and actually...I dunno...reading for once?

Don't bother though. I've no intention of dealing with you because always breaks down into the same dishonest, childish mouthfoaming from you that has become your hallmark trait on this site.
 
jallman said:
Ummm, already did. You gonna try going back and actually...I dunno...reading for once?

Don't bother though. I've no intention of dealing with you because always breaks down into the same dishonest, childish mouthfoaming from you that has become your hallmark trait on this site.
Click to expand...
No idea what you're talking about here, I see nothing of your comment after 221. I do see you here making your usual childish remarks against anyone that dares challenge your self proclaimed "middle ground"
 
jfuh said:
No idea what you're talking about here, I see nothing of your comment after 221. I do see you here making your usual childish remarks against anyone that dares challenge your self proclaimed "middle ground"
Click to expand...

And so it begins. Again. No surprise there.
 
I'm a little surprised that SCOTUS didn't hear the case at all. I don't think it's a conspiracy though... probably just didn't have enough public support or controversy to warrant the courts looking at it. It appeared to be a fringe issue in the first place.
 
jfuh said:
No idea what you're talking about here, I see nothing of your comment after 221. I do see you here making your usual childish remarks against anyone that dares challenge your self proclaimed "middle ground"
Click to expand...

Umm Jfuh as much as I disagree with Jallman most of the time he is correct. On page 7 of this thread, he made this comment on one of his posts.....

jallman said:
I will just accept whatever SCOTUS states on the matter.
Click to expand...
 
Orius said:
I'm a little surprised that SCOTUS didn't hear the case at all. I don't think it's a conspiracy though... probably just didn't have enough public support or controversy to warrant the courts looking at it. It appeared to be a fringe issue in the first place.
Click to expand...
It had no grounds at all. Ought every conspiracy nut have their case heard before the Scotus?
 
MrVicchio said:
Wut? I merely stated , as expected they didn't take it up. :roll:
Click to expand...
Ah, yes, why is it expected?
The most likely outcome is that they find some reason to ignore it. If they take up the case, they look petty, if they do not... well the media isn't gonna rake them over the coals.
Click to expand...
Why do they want to find some reason to ignore it?
Sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy here.
 
jfuh said:
Sounds like tin foil hat conspiracy here.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes you do. Of course, you also believe in AGW... so your judgment on tin foil hat theories is well known.
 
MrVicchio said:
Yes, yes you do. Of course, you also believe in AGW... so your judgment on tin foil hat theories is well known.
Click to expand...
:lol:
Okay, explain yourself then, how is it "expected" and what was the meaning of the post
The most likely outcome is that they find some reason to ignore it. If they take up the case, they look petty, if they do not... well the media isn't gonna rake them over the coals.
Click to expand...
Specifically, if they do not, then what?
 
Wessexman said:
Yes because it is the believers who are the tin foilers.:roll:
Click to expand...
I've found it rather inaccurate of saying "believers of AGW". Saying such is about as rediculous as saying "believers that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west".
It's not a belief of AGW - it's knowledge.
Claiming that it's a belief dilutes the validity of AGW into something that is less than factual and is simply a matter of faith or choice of acceptance.
I think it would be better suited should it be said that one acknowledges AGW rather than one believes it.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The next personal attack gets an infraction and a thread ban.
 
Another meeting set for Friday...

The high court today denied a request to listen to arguments in a case, Donofrio v. Wells, from New Jersey that addressed the issues. But literally within minutes, the court's website confirmed that another conference is scheduled for Friday on another case raising the same worries.

The new case, Cort Wrotnowski v. Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut secretary of state, also makes a dual citizenship argument. It had been rejected by Justice Ruth Ginsburg Nov. 26 but then was resubmitted to Justice Antonin Scalia. There was no word of its fate for about 10 days, then today the court's website confirmed it has been distributed for Friday's conference, a meeting
at which the justices consider whether to take cases.
Eligibility dispute, Part 2, scheduled by Supremes
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused as to why anybody would WANT this case to be taken, unless to simply be disproved. If it won, which it obviously has no chance of doing, but if it did, and Barack Obama was denied the Presidency, everyone understands that there would be an armed revolution attempt in this country right?
 
BlueKC said:
I'm confused as to why anybody would WANT this case to be taken, unless to simply be disproved. If it won, which it obviously has no chance of doing, but if it did, and Barack Obama was denied the Presidency, everyone understands that there would be an armed revolution attempt in this country right?
Click to expand...
IDK about this case, but some of the others have brought up some interesting points of law that haven't been hashed out yet - standing in re challenging a candidates eligibility.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
IDK about this case, but some of the others have brought up some interesting points of law that haven't been hashed out yet - standing in re challenging a candidates eligibility.
Click to expand...

I, personally, believe that the opposing party's national convention should get one shot at it and then put it to rest.
 
BlueKC said:
I'm confused as to why anybody would WANT this case to be taken, unless to simply be disproved.
Click to expand...
Because it goes against our Constitution for anyone to become president that was not a natural born citizen. If it were to be disproven, then no problem. But why all of the secrets? His grandmother said he was born in Kenya. And Obama's making no effort to put this matter to rest.

If you're willing to go against the Constitution, then you are throwing away the Rule of Law in favor of the Rule of Men, and you don't want to go there.


BlueKC said:
If it won, which it obviously has no chance of doing, but if it did, and Barack Obama was denied the Presidency, everyone understands that there would be an armed revolution attempt in this country right?
Click to expand...

Who's going to revolt? Blacks? Liberals? (haha, THAT I'd like to see!) They're going to revolt because we're trying to follow the law of the land? Or do you think it's about racism? You know, there ARE blacks that are concerned about this too. And if you think there's going to be an armed revolt because Obama is denied the presidency, that will pale in comparison to what will happen if we find out that they just wiped their ass with the Constitution.
 
Invayne said:
Because it goes against our Constitution for anyone to become president that was not a natural born citizen. If it were to be disproven, then no problem. But why all of the secrets? His grandmother said he was born in Kenya. And Obama's making no effort to put this matter to rest.

If you're willing to go against the Constitution, then you are throwing away the Rule of Law in favor of the Rule of Men, and you don't want to go there.
Click to expand...

You know that the person pushing the law suit admits he was born in hawaii, right? His argument is that due to sort of a hitch in our naturalization laws, he's ineligable since he had dual American/British citizenship at birth.
 
the makeout hobo said:
You know that the person pushing the law suit admits he was born in hawaii, right? His argument is that due to sort of a hitch in our naturalization laws, he's ineligable since he had dual American/British citizenship at birth.
Click to expand...

Which lawsuit are you talking about? Last I heard there were several. The one I'm referring to is saying he was born in Kenya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom