Supreme Court rejects appeal from 'birther'

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
SP33Demon

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
142
106
But... they didn't opine on it! That must mean they still don't think he was born here.

/crickets
 
V

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Damm that negro african muzzzlim, he now got to them supreme court people as well.

/fox
 
Thump553

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,536
2,229
126
her209 said:
Its a conspiracy! Or so says Karl Rove.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/karl-rove-obama-birthers
Click to expand...

It may be of the stuck clock variety, but I pretty much agree with Rove on that one. I think he's silly to claim the birther controversy is an Obama conspiracy, but the Democrats would be fools not to exploit such repeatedly demonstrated idoicy and fantasy.

BTW from a legal standpoint the Supreme Court's action (denying to hear motion to reconsider petition of appeal) has absolutely no precedent value.
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Thump553 said:
It may be of the stuck clock variety, but I pretty much agree with Rove on that one. I think he's silly to claim the birther controversy is an Obama conspiracy, but the Democrats would be fools not to exploit such repeatedly demonstrated idoicy and fantasy.
Click to expand...
The Republican party leaders could make all this go away but they are unwilling to come out and denounce the birthers. Nope, its Obama's fault.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Thump553 said:
It may be of the stuck clock variety, but I pretty much agree with Rove on that one. I think he's silly to claim the birther controversy is an Obama conspiracy, but the Democrats would be fools not to exploit such repeatedly demonstrated idoicy and fantasy.

BTW from a legal standpoint the Supreme Court's action (denying to hear motion to reconsider petition of appeal) has absolutely no precedent value.
Click to expand...

The Scotus doesn't hear some cases which have merit. This one they probably laughed at then moved on. They wouldn't take a case just to create a precedent.
 
jonks

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Hayabusa Rider said:
The Scotus doesn't hear some cases which have merit. This one they probably laughed at then moved on. They wouldn't take a case just to create a precedent.
Click to expand...

They should have agreed to hear Orly Taitz's case. The oral arguments would have been epic.
 
Lemon law

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
My only question is when some other idiot will files such a lawsuit and get fined a gazillion dollars for filing a frivolous lawsuit. And the idiot attorney who filed the case, for being an idiot hired by an idiot.

Our courts are already over crowded with real lawsuits, why waste any time on frivolous ones. A few disbarred attorneys will send a message. Let the birthers file their cases pro-boner, and then fine them for being Dicks.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Lemon law said:
My only question is when some other idiot will files such a lawsuit and get fined a gazillion dollars for filing a frivolous lawsuit. And the idiot attorney who filed the case, for being an idiot hired by an idiot.

Our courts are already over crowded with real lawsuits, why waste any time on frivolous ones. A few disbarred attorneys will send a message. Let the birthers file their cases pro-boner, and then fine them for being Dicks.
Click to expand...

That's part of what I consider tort reform. If I were king (good thing I'm not :p ) I'd have it so that if a suit is just a rehash or judged frivolous then the person tying up the courts AND their attorney would be fined.

That would cut that crap way down. Right now the lawyers have no down side in taking dumb cases.
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
82,022
44,787
136
Hayabusa Rider said:
That's part of what I consider tort reform. If I were king (good thing I'm not :p ) I'd have it so that if a suit is just a rehash or judged frivolous then the person tying up the courts AND their attorney would be fined.

That would cut that crap way down. Right now the lawyers have no down side in taking dumb cases.
Click to expand...

Attorneys can be subject to judicial sanction for bringing up frivolous cases, it's pretty bad news for them. In fact if I'm not mistaken our good friend Orly has been sanctioned herself.
 
wuliheron

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
The supreme court is a conspiracy too!

If Obama isn't from another country he still claims he's from Hawaii and that might as well be another country. We should send all those illegal immigrants back to Africa, Mexico, Hawaii, or wherever starting at the top with Obama. That's the only way to get through to these kinds of people.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
71,769
5,849
126
I like things as they are. I don't want somebody with a bias determining what is frivolous and what is not. This isn't a frivolous matter to the nut cases filing the claim. Next time the nut cases may be the ones who are right. This intolerance of the opinions of others is fine with me so long as that intolerance doesn't lead to censorship of speech or access to the legal system. Power will always seek to silence people. Powerful people are always sure they are right. There is a price we pay for justice, and some of that price is in the form of tax payer's money. So be it.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
Yep- it's obviously Obama's fault, per the master of spin himself, Karl Rove. It's all part of that Kenyan time warp mind control thing- Obama made birthers into idiots, just so he could exploit 'em.

http://bullmurph.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/BIRTHERS.jpg

If there were any support for hearing this case before the full court, it probably came from Thomas...
 
wuliheron

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Moonbeam said:
I like things as they are. I don't want somebody with a bias determining what is frivolous and what is not. This isn't a frivolous matter to the nut cases filing the claim. Next time the nut cases may be the ones who are right. This intolerance of the opinions of others is fine with me so long as that intolerance doesn't lead to censorship of speech or access to the legal system. Power will always seek to silence people. Powerful people are always sure they are right. There is a price we pay for justice, and some of that price is in the form of tax payer's money. So be it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, tell that to Julian Assange or, better yet, start arguing with a cop the next time you get a speeding ticket. Freedom of speech my ass. This is war!
 
Thump553

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,536
2,229
126
eskimospy said:
Attorneys can be subject to judicial sanction for bringing up frivolous cases, it's pretty bad news for them. In fact if I'm not mistaken our good friend Orly has been sanctioned herself.
Click to expand...

I've been practicing since the mid-70s and the rules have been in place for heavy attorney fee sanctions have been in place since then, at least in federal courts. The states I've practiced in have had similar rules for as long, or nearly as long.

The problem is the sanction rules are extremely rarely enforced. There are several reasons frequently given for this. One very significant reason is that many jurisdictions require reporting of sanctioning decisions to the disciplinary section of the bar. In other words, the judge realizes that attorney could lose his license to practice and livelyhood if he gets sanctioned. Another reason is the rules set a very high hurdle to meet-usually along the lines that filing the suit wasn't justified under current law nor under any reasonably conceivable new rule of law. The common law changes all the time as our society evolves. A very cogent argument could have been made that many of the current lawsuits against Obamacare aren't supported by any reasonable current construction of law. The Supreme Court could change the law-the certainly have in the past (like the case throwing out limits on corporate funding of elections, overruling over one hundred years of precedent to do so).

The fact is-and just about any lawyer can tell you this-that nearly every single litigant freverently believes that the other side in his or her case is pursuing a frivilous case (or frivilious defense, as the case may be).

Whatever the reason, my point is that the rules providing for atty fees for frivilous cases have been in place a long time.

PS: I wonder how much an overlap there is between birthers and 9/11 conspiracy buffs, or if there has ever been any surveys done. I've seen many JFK conspiracists become 9/11 conspiracists as well.
 
Last edited:
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,680
136
Thump553 said:
PS: I wonder how much an overlap there is between birthers and 9/11 conspiracy buffs, or if there has ever been any surveys done. I've seen many JFK conspiracists become 9/11 conspiracists as well.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there's a big overlap with middle class chumps who think trickle down economics are anything more than a scam...
 
wuliheron

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
HomerJS said:
40% of the GOP are into that birther bullshit.

They just can't stand the fact The United States elected a black president so they continue to perpetuate that "fernner" stuff.
Click to expand...

This has little to do with Obama being black. If he was white they'd still be grasping at any straw they could to make him look bad and claiming they believed he was a Martian if they thought it might hurt him. It's classic hate mongering that people like Rush Limbaugh have been promoting for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom