in that case the FL SC was violating their own laws
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction
- Thread starter Modbert
- Start date
Separating idiots from their money...
...maybe we should start more crazy Tea Party type conspiracies so more of these idiots will file frivolous law suits?
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obamas citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judges October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a frivolous litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitzs second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
...maybe we should start more crazy Tea Party type conspiracies so more of these idiots will file frivolous law suits?
in that case the FL SC was violating their own lawsNO
we dont have "federal elections"
each state holds the election
except when they want to overturn the election law determination of the highest court of the state of florida.
i'm thinking the birfers haven't figured out yet that most people see them for the morons they are... even the supreme court.
And the SCOTUS stepping in to rein in a lawless FLORIDA Supreme Court actually served the cherished "liberal" mandate of one man, one vote.
One can, perhaps, take issue with the SCOTUS decision, but if our resident libbies were honest, they should have also been outraged by the crap the joke justices of the FL. Sp. Ct. were trying to pull off.
no... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
the FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the factno... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
the FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the factno... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
you can tell yourself that.
if it were true, sandra day o'connor wouldn't have said her decision in that case was the biggest regret of her professional life. her regret wasn't political... it was embarrassment over having compromised her judicial reputation.
link for that?the FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the factno... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
you can tell yourself that.
if it were true, sandra day o'connor wouldn't have said her decision in that case was the biggest regret of her professional life. her regret wasn't political... it was embarrassment over having compromised her judicial reputation.
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obamas citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judges October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a frivolous litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitzs second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
I wonder how much it cost her to take her $20,000 case to the Supreme Court?
Supreme Court upholds birther sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court has upheld a $20,000 fine against a leader of the movement challenging President Barack Obamas citizenship.
The high court on Monday refused to block a federal judges October 2009 ruling that required California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz to pay the $20,000 fine for filing a frivolous litigation. The judge said Taitz attempted to misuse the federal courts to push a political agenda.
Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitzs second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
There are laws against frivolous litigation? Why they hell aren't they used more??
The 2 most conservative Justices on the US Supreme Court refused this goof ball's request: Justice Samuel Alito on Monday rejected Taitzs second request to block the sanctions. Justice Clarence Thomas had rejected the request earlier.
Read more: Supreme Court upholds ‘birther’ sanction | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
This is what happens when people argue politics or ideology in court without a firm legal argument.
This is what happens when moonbats and wingnuts think a court is liberal or conservative in a vacuum.
Immigration, abortion, guns and god in the classrooms, and anti-gay marriage legal eagles better take notice.
NOThe jokes on you, didn't you hear Arizona passed a law that said anyone running for political office must show their birth certificate? obama could by pass Arizona and not be put on the ballot, but he's going to need every illegal; vote he can get in 2012.
I'm unfamiliar with election laws but couldn't Obama just say
'Supremacy clause motherfuckers. You don't get to mess with federal elections'
we dont have "federal elections"
each state holds the election
then why was the federal supreme court allowed to interfere with the state of florida's and the florida state supreme court decisions on Bush v gore presidential election?
Sorry bout that,
1. One day it will come out obama lied about being born in America.
2. And when that happens then a whole lot of seemingly good names will have to go down the toilet.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
1. One day it will come out obama lied about being born in America.
2. And when that happens then a whole lot of seemingly good names will have to go down the toilet.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
that was already explainedNOI'm unfamiliar with election laws but couldn't Obama just say
'Supremacy clause motherfuckers. You don't get to mess with federal elections'
we dont have "federal elections"
each state holds the election
then why was the federal supreme court allowed to interfere with the state of florida's and the florida state supreme court decisions on Bush v gore presidential election?
go back and read
that was already explainedNO
we dont have "federal elections"
each state holds the election
then why was the federal supreme court allowed to interfere with the state of florida's and the florida state supreme court decisions on Bush v gore presidential election?
go back and read
oh, ok, just got here and did not read the thread, what poster explained it?
methat was already explainedthen why was the federal supreme court allowed to interfere with the state of florida's and the florida state supreme court decisions on bush v gore presidential election?
go back and read
oh, ok, just got here and did not read the thread, what poster explained it?
the FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the factno... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
scotus changed florida election law AFTER the fact as well then too.
I know it's almost like the birther movement doesn't have any physical evidence he was born there. What a shock!
Well, according to a certain blogger, Obama's father is Malcolm X.
no... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
They said it had zero precedent beause they know it's a flawed decision.
It's ancient history now, can't get in the time machine to change it. But that's one of those times O'Connor got political for expediency. You know they were more worried about putting it to bed than getting it right. Otherwise why all the internal contradictions over voting as a fundamental right?
no, they didntthe FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the factno... every precedent EVER was that the highest court of a state is the sole determinant of that state's election laws.
until the supremes did their thing. only they did it and said it had ZERO nil nada value as precedent.
the best explanation for it was from a republican friend who's very involved in republican politics...
he said: the fix was in in florida... the supremes had a bigger fix.
at least he was honest instead of trying to twist himself into a pretzel to defend the legally indefensible.
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
scotus changed florida election law AFTER the fact as well then too.
no, they didntthe FL SC was trying to change the election laws AFTER the fact
thats why the SCOTUS HAD to step in
scotus changed florida election law AFTER the fact as well then too.
yes they did. they cut off the recount that was approved already by saying the votes had to be tallied by that saturday night of their decision...when florida election law and federal law had provisions of what steps were to be followed if electors of florida missed the cut off date to dc, due to a recount not being completed.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 147
- Replies
- 222
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 36
- Views
- 308
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 132
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 149
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 101
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-