if it were a "Dead Horse" the Supreme Court ...sm
Posted By: dnh on 2008-11-28
In Reply to: Of all the headlines out there, THIS is the one - you think we should be discussing, AGAIN? sm
would not be still considering it further, which they are. Perhaps that should be your first dose of reality.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
- Headlines - At least I'm not the only one who wants to know
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Supreme Court
I think a huge issue people may not realize is that within the next president's term, the probability is that THREE to SIX of the Supreme Court justices will be retiring.
The next president will be able to place a significant number of justices, and they will be in place until they retire or die.
That makes the presidential race all the more important.
I, for one, don't want Obama stacking the deck, so to speak, with people who share his 'you're not alive until I SAY you're alive' view of life.
For me, this was the most profound part of the article:
"For Obama, whether or not a temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb little girl is a "person" entitled to constitutional rights is not determined by her humanity, her age or even her place in space relative to her mother's uterus. It is determined by a whether a doctor has been trying to kill her."
I saw an interview with a young woman once who had survived abortion, though it did leave her with lifelong disabilities. She would not have been alive at all if it weren't for a nurse pulling her out of the trash. That's as sorry a state of affairs as I can imagine.
It already is going to Supreme Court -
I hope this time it wins.
Supreme Court Ruling.
I almost fainted when I read ***Supreme Court Finds Bush Overstepped his Authority** in relation to the military tribunals. This being a very conservative court with 2 Bush appointees I have just felt that whatever was on the table would have a conservative outcome. I am shocked. What does anyone else think?
Supreme court lost their
credibility in the Bush/Gore recount.
The Supreme Court won't stop him for much longer.
Thate 5-3 decision would have been a 5-4 decision, had Roberts not recused himself from ruling due to his prior ruling in the case at a lower court.
Alito and Roberts are Bush loyalists who will vote in his favor every time. Same with Scalia and Thomas.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is 86. This means there is a very good chance that Bush will have the opportunity to appoint a third Supreme Court Justice, thus negatively tipping and fixing the scales of justice for decades to come, long after Bush is gone. Some radical right-wingers (including Ann Coulter) have publicly called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice, and Pat Robertson has been *praying* for another Bush appointment. If/when that happens, freedom as we know it in the United States will be gone for generations.
In the meantime, the current Supreme Court ruling won't mean much. They're already talking about creating a law to make Bush's tactics legal.
Not that even THAT would matter much. Bush hasn't agreed with Congress' laws 750 times since he's been in office, and he's issued *signing statements* allowing him to ignore the law.
He apparently views himself as having expanded Presidential powers in a time of war. Maybe that's a large part of the true reason we're at war with Iraq.
Actually, it was the Ohio State Supreme court, not...
the Supreme Court of the United States. That was then appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who upheld the state supreme court ruling.
I guess that puts you and Sarah on about the same footing as far as the Supreme court?
Just asking.
The Supreme Court first has to decide whether to rule...sm
on the case. They do not hear every case presented to them. They are very likely to send it back to the lower court if they think it is frivolous.
You're right about the Supreme Court decision,...
but I have to wonder if it's just a nice little motto, why do so many who seek to remove anything even appearing religious from the government or anything to do with the government still look at that dollar with In God We Trust and scream separation of church and state? If there's no religious meaning anymore, why the arguments?
JMHO, there is still religious meaning to those who are religious and everyone except the Supreme Court knows that. I agree that religion doesn't belong in the government, but only in the sense that government shouldn't be involved in matters of religion, such as where we can pray, whether or not I can say Merry Christmas without offending anyone, what church I can attend, or which God I pray to.
Obama has never made an appointment to the supreme court
You need to be contacting your republican representatives.
I guess you're smarter than the supreme court....
nm
Obama Picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court
May 26, 2009, 8:15 am
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court Nominee
By Jeff Zeleny
Ron Jordan Natoli Studio/U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, via Associated Press
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as his first appointment to the court, officials said Tuesday, and has scheduled an announcement for 10:15 a.m. at the White House.
If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
Conservative groups reacted with sharp criticism on Tuesday morning. “Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than the law as written,” said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network. “She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one’s sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.”
The president reached his decision over the long Memorial Day weekend, aides said, but it was not disclosed until Tuesday morning when he informed his advisers of his choice less than three hours before the announcement was scheduled to take place.
Mr. Obama telephoned Judge Sotomayor at 9 p.m. on Monday, officials said, advising her that she was his choice to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Later Monday night, Mr. Obama called the three other finalists — Judge Diane P. Wood of Chicago, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Solicitor General Elena Kagan — to inform them that he had selected Judge Sotomayor.
White House officials worked into the night to prepare for the announcement, without knowing who it would be.
Judge Sotomayor has sat for the last 11 years on the federal appeals bench in Manhattan. As the top federal appeals court in the nation’s commercial center, the court is known in particular for its expertise in corporate and securities law. For six years before that, she was a federal district judge in New York.
In what may be her best-known ruling, Judge Sotomayor issued an injunction against major league baseball owners in April 1995, effectively ending a baseball strike of nearly eight months, the longest work stoppage in professional sports history, which had led to the cancellation of the World Series for the first time in 90 years.
Born in the Bronx on June 23, 1954, she was diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8. Her father, a factory worker, died a year later. Her mother, a nurse at a methadone clinic, raised her daughter and a younger son on a modest salary.
Judge Sotomayor graduated from Princeton University summa cum laude in 1976 and and attended Yale Law School, where she was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. She spent five years as a prosecutor with the Manhattan district attorney’s office before entering private practice.
But she longed to return to public service, she said, inspired by the “Perry Mason” series she watched as a child. In 1992, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended the politically centrist lawyer to President George H. W. Bush, making good on a longstanding promise to appoint a Hispanic judge in New York.
On the Circuit Court, she has been involved in few controversial issues like abortion. Some of her most notable decisions came in child custody and complex business cases. Her most high-profile case involved New Haven’s decision to toss out tests used to evaluate candidates for promotion in the fire department because there were no minority candidates at the top of the list.
She was part of a panel that rejected the challenge brought by white firefighters who scored high but were denied promotion. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff, argued that it was unfair he was denied promotion after he had studied intensively for the exam and even paid for special coaching to overcome his dyslexia.
The case produced a heated split in the Circuit Court and is now before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court will not take on BO's Birth certificate . Time for you to take action!
I stated in a previos post a few days ago that BO birth certificate case would not be heard by the Supreme Court. As many of you have said the judges and the Supreme Court are suppressing evidence as to the real situation that many of you do have extemsive, and true facts about. Clearly from your in depth knowledge about this situation, a cover up is occurring, not only by the Federal courts, but by the Supreme Court as will.
As in my previous post I strongly suggest that with the real evidence that you posses, that you most simplyt take action now, and save this country, not only ultimately disallowing Obama to be president, but to ultimately perform the ultimate patriotic duty for yourselves, as well as performing the highest civic duty that you likely will ever do in your lifetimes.
There is another current legal case in the works regarding this serious situation. Thus far the costs for persuing this matter are over $30,000 dollars. This can be found by doing a Google search, donations are badly needed, and if you people will make substantial donations regarding this, the higher the likelihood that the case will be placed in the hands of a federal judge.
The other possibility here is to start as a group, a collective case, pool your resourses to hire an attorney who speecialises in these matters, pay the retainer fees, the attorney's hourly fees regarding the case, and get the case filed in the Federal courts. The fees for doing this are not cheap, but you are MTs and make high paying salaries, so $20,000 to $30,000 should not be a problem here. Even the appeal process that is likely to occur is not out of your range as MTs, as it really only costs about double the amount of money to do so, as again the total expenses regarding filing an appeal would likely only be about $50,000 to $60,000 dollars,, and the beauty of the system is that if you are ultimately successful in winning the case, and you likely would be with the real facts at your disposal, the court costs are covered, and you would become true national hero's!!!!!
I don't understand that with the true information that you posses, why you are not persuing this instead of writing about on message boards.
With the true facts that you posses it is quite likely that you will ultimately win the case, would have completed the highest of civic duties, and will be held in the highest of esteem for finally exposing a person who has committed a terrible fraud, not only to the election process, but also to the federal judicial system, and ultimately going as far as perpetrating that fraud up to and inc;luding the Supreme Court.
I laud you in advance for having the fortitude for persuing this, and look forward to saluting you as well all of of the other American people, for performing the highest civic and patriotic duty that one ever could. It's people like you, that never give up, and get to the bottom of such an important situation. You are the true American heroes.
Supreme Court Rejects Obama Birth Certificate Case
Now, if we can just all survive until January 20, 2008, without another war or false flag attack on our nation, there may be some hope for the future. Until then, Bush is still President and still a very dangerous man.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/obama-birth-certificate-c_n_149229.html
July 2008 - I guess our Supreme Court was full of crap, too, huh?
July 2008
In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.
I guess our supreme court doesn't know what it is doing with regard to the BIRTH CERTIFICATE
shoulda allowed Harriet Meyers in there......
Texas supreme court affirms special rights for religion
The Texas state supreme court ruled unanimously on Friday that a town which had altered its zoning to ban two church-sponsored halfway houses in a residential neighborhood was in violation of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
That act, which was passed in 1999 and endorsed by then-Governor George W. Bush, affords greater legal protection to religious operations than to equivalent secular operations.
Under its provisions, cities have to prove that zoning regulations — like the one passed by the town of Sinton to ban jails and rehabs within 1000 feet of a home, school, or church — further a “compelling” interest, such as protecting public safety, and do not place a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion.
Town officials asserted that the zoning regulations placed no restrictions on worship or the practice of religion and were merely intended to protect the safety of residents. This position was upheld at the local and appeals court levels.
However, the all-Republican and generally conservative state supreme court agreed with Pastor Richard Barr’s claim that because the town of Sinton is so small, the regulation had the effect of excluding him from operating his “ministry” for parolees anywhere.
Barr’s case was argued by the conservative Liberty Legal Institute (LLI) and was also supported by the American Center for Law and Justice — founded by Pat Robertson — and by the ACLU.
LLI was involved several years ago in a widely-noted case against a Texas school district which its litigation director, Hiram Sasser, claimed had demonstrated “pervasive religious hostility” by banning the distribution at Christmas time of candy canes with a religious message.
According to Sasser, today’s decision “means that in zoning cases you have to give churches special treatment. … You have to have very special reasons for telling a church you can’t locate here and locate there. That’s going to be a touch burden for cities.”
“This is a home run,” Sasser proclaimed. ‘I think it will be a model for other states.”
Watch "Dead Wrong" tonight on CNN at 8 pm ET.
It will go into detail of how Colin Powell was given faulty intelligence before his address to the UN to present the case for war in Iraq. He was hoodwinked, and he says for that he will have to live with it.
I don't have a horse
and I don't have any boots.
Noam Chomsky, the supreme anti-American. sm
If someone told you that they supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, would you think they were a great guy? He did, you know. There's quite a dossier on him at www.DiscoverTheNetwork.com. You might want to check it out.
Iran's supreme leader okay with vote count...(sm)
From his speech today: He also said if the demonstrations didn't stop there might be chaos and bloodshed, and that rival candidates calling for protests would be blamed. See link for full details.
This is going to get really, really bad.
you could always marry a horse
x
horse and pony
Hmmm........seems to me she has been decrying her innocence on this issue since it was brought up. What struck me the most during the convention when giving her speech written by Dubya's speechwriter - was the fact that she paraded her poor pregnant daughter in front of the masses - the girl looked terrified - and then they passed that tiny 4-month-old baby around like he had something big and stinky in his diaper (evident by the pained expression on Cindy McCain's face). I think they should be ashamed of themselves for USING her children like circus freaks. And.....Lord have Mercy........people are falling all over themselves for this soap opera.
high horse?
nm
Oh, get off your high horse.... I'm sure you
have had nothing to say when McCain and Palin are being kicked about here. Your true colors are showing!
Horse feathers! sm
"This country was not founded on Christianity or any other religion." What cave have you been living in, JTBB?
The preamble to our constitution written by our nation's founders states that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our CREATOR. While it does not mention God by name, obviously the founders of this nation believed in a higher being who created this world and all that is in it. Washington and Franklin and Jefferson, as well as others, may have been deists rather than Christians of a particular religion such as Baptists or Methodists, but they did believe in a supreme God who created the universe. So please stop it with "we were not founded on Christian beliefs." It really is wearing thin.
A nation that trusts in God, as our currency says we do, enjoys the benefits of the protection of a benevolent and loving God. I don't think that we should trust in God just to be seen in any particular way by other nations but rather so that we may receive blessings of God so that we may be a prosperous and moral nation, something that we are ceasing to be as we are increasingly turning our back on God.
He's beating a dead horse.
Even Bush finally came clean and said there were none. That's when the *reason* for the war changed from WMDs to freeing the Iraqis (while ignoring bin Laden in Afghanistan).
I find it very, VERY interesting that his sudden *find* came less than 24 hours after PBS aired a very revealing show (*The Dark Side*) about the Iraq war, Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Cheney, with the majority of the people interviewed being CIA agents, who generally had more than 20 years of service with the CIA, and they said some pretty shocking (but not too surprising) things about this whole war. (If you'd like to see this show, you can view it in its entirety on line by going to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/; I'd personally recommend it.)
When it's all said and done, though, regardless of how many facts are presented, Santorum could have declared to the world that there's evidence that Saddam had SLINGSHOTS, and some unfortunate souls on these boards would still say, *See? We told you he had WMDs.* It's really difficult to even be upset, frustrated or angry with them any more. I just mostly feel sorry for them. 
Obama, The Trojan Horse...
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200812032845/editorial/obama-the-trojan-horse.html
You are beating a dead horse! (nm)
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Better the high horse than the low road....nm
nm
They just want to see us come down from our imperial high horse.
That's all.
Straight from the horse's mouth... sm
Did you not watch the video???? That is EXACTLY what Obama said. So now you are saying that Obama himself is not credible???? 
What I found even MORE ridiculous is what he said before having said "I am the change." 
You can lead a horse to water...
You can teach teenagers abstinence, but you can't make them practice it! Therefore, teaching birth control makes much more sense. If Bristol Palin had been given access to birth control, she wouldn't be in the predicament she's in.
Where's my dead horse beating stick???
The US went to war with Iraq for a number of reasons, including concern over Saddam's failure to account for WMDs, which put him in violation of the treaty that ended Gulf War I, and violation of several UN resolutions - I can never remember if it was 14 or 17.
If you really want an answer to this question, a search for the resolution permitting use of force in Iraq should be relatively easy. I'm not sure it's worthwhile, though, since the matter is essentially moot, since we are there now.
My question to you: There is a lot of discussion lately about possibly increasing troop levels in Iraq to try to bring the security situation under control. What are your thoughts on that? Do you support it? Would you support it if you could be persuaded that there was a reasonable possibility of success?
Personally, I'm a bit ambivalent. I don't have a problem supporting more troops, but I think it's as much a PC problem as a troop number problem in Iraq. In other words, I don't think US forces can do much to bring security to Iraq if they are forced to always act in the most P.C. manner possible so as not to risk offending any single faction or, heaven forbid, creating negative spin in the press.
I certainly think we could be effective there in securing the country, but only if we realize that we might have to leave a heavy footprint in Iraq in order to accomplish that goal. For example, I think we should have taken out al Sadr, even if it meant leveling significant portions of Sadr City, when he first became a major underming influence to the new Iraqi government. Some may think that makes me a flag-waving member of the Death Squad, but I have to wonder how many lives could have been spared in the long run had we stamped al Sadr out then, when we had a good tactical opportunity and could have done so fairly easily.
If we're going to send our troops over there in harm's way to fight for the security of Iraq, the dream of democracy, and the creation of a competing vision for the future of the Middle East, then we must let them fight to win.
Well, I wouldn't but that's what makes horse races. n/m
LOL I think that high horse is going to start bucking
and it's a long way to the ground.
meant "through" the mouth of a horse
Typo....oops.
Bridger, you put the cart before the horse. Read my
lips. DO NOT post the entire article. Post only excerpts from it with link to it.
Do you want the owners of this board in a legal battle? All it takes is someone reporting one of your posts for that to happen. I am warning you for your own good. If you don't care about the owners of this board, others of us do.
Get a grip, will ya? And, get legal.
I'll wait to hear it from the horse's mouth. sm
Though it really makes no difference to me one way or the other. I never considered him a Republican. I think he is a fiscal conservative. He said on another link he is apolitical. Should be interesting.
Heroe..like - He can't take the high horse and then claim the low road.
Bushisms
I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state.
I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.
See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.
The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.
http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_bushisms.html
Since Homeland security was a horse and pony show.....
there was really little Bush could do. But, he did promise to catch Bin Laden but never did - he invaded Iraq instead. I think Katrina gives a birdseye view on how a catastrophe would be handled by Bush. He screwed that up AFTER 9/11. Like they say - NEVER FORGET.
JBB, I like your thinking, but at the risk of "beating a dead horse," .......
Buy new computers = putting money in the economy = jobs for people to build computers.
Those computers are built in Japan, China, Korea, and almost every place in the world BUT the USA.
Just like last year when we got our "stimulus check." The only economies jump started, if any, were the ones overseas when everybody bought their TV's, computers etc.
Mr. Dean talks thought the mouth of a horse
Yeah, like anything he has to say is valuable. This is the guy who screamed out all those states - HEEEEE-YAWWWWWW?
Mr. Dean is a spiteful crat to the bone and did not do his job properly. He didn't stand on the side of the people, who stood with the big money people.
If he's going to call anyone a murderer he best go back to Billy boy himself with those wars he started that he had no place involving the US troops. Lots of innocent people were slaughtered because of him back then and no he did not follow the Geneva code.
To paraphrase, you can lead a horse to the facts, but you can't make it think. nm
nm
Yes, it is interesting. I would be willing to see it go to court...
if we explore the dual citizenship/multi-citizenship of Obama at the same time. How about you?
Even if it is court ordered
By federal law, they cannot garnish someone's wages at maximum 65% and yes, child support is a garnishment. The judge can say all he wants and should put him in jail if he doesn't pay. I am totally behind you on this, but I have been there. I received checks for $15 for two weeks for years and that was 65% of his income. (The reason it was that low was because he decided to go back to school and his daddy supported him). The judge in our case also told him that he, by court order, still had to pay the full amount even though by FEDERAL law they could not garnish his wages more than 65%. Judge told him it was his responsibility to pay the difference no matter where it came from. Judge told him to get another job, borrow from his family, do what he had to do to get it paid.
Unfortunately in the state of Ohio (I lived in Michigan), you have to be like $25,000 behind before they would go after him and actually put a person in jail for child support. Enforcing child support laws is something they were very much in lack of when I went through the system.
He did get it paid up about 2 years ago. Took him over 10 years to do so. He has since passed away and I'd return all the money if it could bring him back for my kids.
I struggled for years with my kids on my own. We had a lot of mac and cheese and PBJs. There were many times I went hungry to feed my kids or to make sure I had gas in my tank to get to my job. But I made it. She can too. I know how hard it is and how frustrating the whole situation is. I was just trying to empathize with you and let you know there were others out there. The person you need to blame is the dad for not taking care of his children. It is wrong of him to keep creating more children when he can't take care of the ones that he has, but I am a firm believer that what you do will bite you back twice as hard at some point.
Remember that if he loses his security clearance and gets out of he military, jobs are even harder to come by that pay anything above minimum wage these days. They can hold his federal taxes only if he is holding a job that doesn't pay cash under the table. Holding a drivers license, most of the scum bags don't care. I was in a support group many years ago and ran into a lot of these situations. I've heard about what a lot of these irresponsible parents will do to get out of paying.
Best of luck to you and your daughter.
Nowadays, anything that comes before a court
and with courts and lawyers (and hospital legal departments) deciding what probably ought to be private family matters, everything is up for political grabs. Then libs and conservatives can square off on opposite sides and make a media circus out of it.
It is unfortunate that husband and parents could not come to agreement on this matter. Were the parents just selfishly refusing to release their brain-dead daughter's soul, keeping it trapped in her deteriorating body; were they doing this out of love, to spite her husband? Or was her husband selfishly trying to get rid of an encumbrance in order to move on with his own life; was he doing it to spite the parents? Or was it more than a little of both?
That's right, ignore a court document....
denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care.
And how does that speak to character?
No court has recognized any imperative
cetificate of live birth which has been provided, recognized and accepted on numberous occasions.
1. Andy Martin (Hawaii) Petition 29414 - denied.
2. David Neal request (Ohio) - denied.
3. Cort Wrotnowski (Connecticut) - denied.
4. Steven Marquis (Washington) - denied.
5. Leo Donofrio (New Jersey) - denied.
6. Phillip Berg (Pennsylvania) - denied.
7. Rev Tom Terry (Georgia) - denied.
Courts don't agree with you. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS. How many more times will it take to get this through your thick skulls?
No offense, but I seriously doubt she will prove it in a court of law. sm
She is entitled to her belief system, but I don't agree with anything she has to say. We will have to wait and see.
"...go to court AGAINST a Christian who wants to wear a cross"
nm
It is still on the docket slated for a court date
--
|
