RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:16:18 PM)

quote:

you are shit outta luck


Well, certainly the feds have so far denied standing to every suit brought in an attempt to have evidence presented in the federal courts.
I and many many others expect the issue of standing to be a non-starter in any attempt to fight the legitimacy of newly proposed state laws requiring candidates prove eligibility for office before having their names put on the ballot.

0bama0Care was just screamingly, obviously Constitutional.... we were just shit outta luck.
Until a judge heard the case [:D]



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:17:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

What they are doing does not seem to be illegal.


True.
But some voters think it is cause for dismissal.



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:19:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

But they are a distinction without a difference until the point that they are defined difinitively (if that carries a notion), and that hasn't happened.


That's exactly what we want- a SCOTUS definition of "natural born citizen".

A judicial defintion simply does not exist (and 0bama0 is fighting hard- and, admittedly, winning, at this point- to keep the Courts from issuing one).




I don't think he gives a fuck if SCOTUS wants to rule on that definition, it is going to take a case.  They don't rule in the absence of a case.   I haven't heard Obama saying a goddamn thing.  It don't matter, he has an AMERICAN MOTHER.  After that, every other fucking thing can be a lie, and it does not matter. 



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:20:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

A poll .. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm
by Gallup and USA today
Poll: 61% oppose limits on union bargaining power


POLL: Likely voters nationwide back Governor Walker



Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:23:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

you are shit outta luck


Well, certainly the feds have so far denied standing to every suit brought in an attempt to have evidence presented in the federal courts.
I and many many others expect the issue of standing to be a non-starter in any attempt to fight the legitimacy of newly proposed state laws requiring candidates prove eligibility for office before having their names put on the ballot.

0bama0Care was just screamingly, obviously Constitutional.... we were just shit outta luck.
Until a judge heard the case [:D]


Dont change the goalposts, we are talking about your obsessing over the birther issue.
Nothing shown thus far is legally verifiable,  its alll wishful thinking and hatred on the birthers side.
Gonna have to make a collar for you to stop you licking your own genitals
its cutting off the blood supply to your head.



rulemylife -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:23:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

A poll .. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm
by Gallup and USA today
Poll: 61% oppose limits on union bargaining power


POLL: Likely voters nationwide back Governor Walker



And from Rasmussen.

Imagine that.

Who could ask for a more impartial source?



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:25:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

A poll .. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-22-poll-public-unions-wisconsin_N.htm
by Gallup and USA today
Poll: 61% oppose limits on union bargaining power


POLL: Likely voters nationwide back Governor Walker



Did you read the questions and the content of the Rassmussen site?
The Headline has no congruence with reality. it is a made up number as all their asswipe is. 

(edit:  not that I find ANY poll worth wiping my ass on, they are all deeply flawed).



Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:26:25 PM)

And only 48 % back the governor
which means 52 dont or dont care
so whats your point
?



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:28:27 PM)

Any elected official in Wisconsin is subject to a recall election after having served one year.
As I understand the basics of the state law, paperwork has to be filed, then the group organizing the effort has 60 days to get signatures from the appropriate district equaling 25% of the votes cast in that district in the last Governors race.
8 Senate Dims have served for over a year. The paperwork has been filed (by a group based in Utah(?)). Signatures are being collected; recall elections could be held in less than 4 months.
These clowns need to go back to work.
To use the wisdom of 0bama0: they lost. Elections have consequences.



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:28:42 PM)

and 48% do not back the governor, didn't fuckin' happen. Its a rassmussen poll.



rulemylife -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:30:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Any elected official in Wisconsin is subject to a recall election after having served one year.
As I understand the basics of the state law, paperwork has to be filed, then the group organizing the effort has 60 days to get signatures from the appropriate district equaling 25% of the votes cast in that district in the last Governors race.
8 Senate Dims have served for over a year. The paperwork has been filed (by a group based in Utah(?)). Signatures are being collected; recall elections could be held in less than 4 months.
These clowns need to go back to work.
To use the wisdom of 0bama0: they lost. Elections have consequences.


To use the wisdom of reality, ain't going to happen.



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:30:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Any elected official in Wisconsin is subject to a recall election after having served one year.
As I understand the basics of the state law, paperwork has to be filed, then the group organizing the effort has 60 days to get signatures from the appropriate district equaling 25% of the votes cast in that district in the last Governors race.
8 Senate Dims have served for over a year. The paperwork has been filed (by a group based in Utah(?)). Signatures are being collected; recall elections could be held in less than 4 months.
These clowns need to go back to work.
To use the wisdom of 0bama0: they lost. Elections have consequences.


Utah? standing?  4 months, 4 long months, well winter will be over soon. 



Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:34:12 PM)

The unions have already agreed to the cuts, and to temporarily suspend their rights, but the governor is refusing anything but full capitulation.Thats not re negotiation, thats breaking a contract





truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:34:45 PM)

Well, of course it takes a case; interesting you should mention that.
As it happens, SCOTUS is hearing a certiorari request mar 4th.
Scalia has implied there were three votes to grant certiorari previously. It only takes 4.
As an aside, there will be immense- and entirely proper- pressure on Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse if certiorari is granted.



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:36:16 PM)

Governor Walker is admittedly renegotiating from a position of strength [:D]



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:38:17 PM)

the pressure may be proper because it is a free country, I can see no reason why they would recuse unless republican appointees would.

Scalia may hint at 4th times the charm, because  maybe this idiot can finally get a cert after being shot down 3 times (on roughly the same exact grounds) . But that isn't making any law at this point, is it?  



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:44:49 PM)

Best in 2012.
Best overall, imo.



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 2:49:29 PM)

quote:

I can see no reason why they would recuse unless republican appointees would.


if 0bama0 is found to be ineligible for POTUS, one leagl train of thought says that anything he signed would be void.
Including the appointments of Kagan and Sotomayor.
They have a huge vested interest in the case, and should recuse.

I really don't think they will grant cert Mar 4th.
I do not think a coherent argument can be made denying States the right to make candidates for POTUS prove their eligibility before having their names put on the ballot. Different kettle of legal fish entirely.



truckinslave -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 3:02:57 PM)

This just in.
Wis has suspended direct deposit for legislators who miss more than two session days. They will have to pick up their checks in person. No expense reimbursement by mail, either....
I hope they stay out until the recall elections....[:D]



mnottertail -> RE: SCOTT WALKER for President (2/22/2011 3:03:36 PM)

That's mixing several things, but they have no ability to find him ineligilbe, since his mother was an American Citizen.  However consider the reasons why else they would not.

Gerald Ford, adopted.....where were his parents from?  Is he a natural born citizen if not the son of his 'parents'? 

Ronald Reagan was nicknamed 'Dutch'  but 'allegedly' he was born of Irish-American parents ---there's some tinfoil for ya.......

and so on and so on.....  



Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875