Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 9:29 am
You last visited December 11, 2017, 8:11 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Judge says Obama can be on Georgia ballot



Well ... duh. LOL

Here's a refresher ....


Here's how the process works ... (hint: you are not the cop.) Roll Eyes

Entry #724


JAP69Comment by JAP69 - February 15, 2012, 9:05 am
Then this court case sets a recent precedence for Marco Rubio to be eligible.
I like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal
time*treatComment by time*treat - February 15, 2012, 9:56 am
Are you under the impression that the rules are going to be applied consistently? ;-)
JAP69Comment by JAP69 - February 15, 2012, 10:46 am
Yep I sure do. They have no choice now but to follow legal precedence. LOL
Rick GComment by Rick G - February 15, 2012, 12:47 pm
Legal precedence is what 800 years of English common law is based upon. That went down the toilet along with the Magna Carta when Bush, Obama and congress nullified habeas corpus and legalized state kidnapping, torture and murder. Currently there is no law except at the whim of the state. Keep voting the same lawbreakers into office though, and hope for your change.
TigerAngelComment by TigerAngel - February 15, 2012, 1:20 pm
The case seemed to be going good until the judge prolly got a phone call. Prolly the call included graffic details of how his children could be tortured.
TenajComment by Tenaj - February 15, 2012, 4:51 pm
It's like one poster said "the dog keeps barking but the caravan moves on"
rdgrnrComment by rdgrnr - February 15, 2012, 5:21 pm
Nobody wants to be the first person to make the Preident honor his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Cuz that person will then be a racist.
rdgrnrComment by rdgrnr - February 15, 2012, 5:25 pm
ToddComment by Todd - February 15, 2012, 6:16 pm
I am actually very surprised at the reasoning given by the judge. It is almost unheard of for a state judge to rely upon a decision from another state to make their ruling. You *sometimes* hear a judge include the reasoning used in another state's ruling, but it is never the basis for a decision -- only a supporting fact among many.

So I'm guessing it is a progressive/liberal judge. It is like when one of the Supreme Court's liberal judges uses the reasoning in another country's ruling to help guide their decision-making. That should *never* happen -- not even once in a million years. And a state judge should *never* use another state's ruling as the basis of their own decision.
Rick GComment by Rick G - February 16, 2012, 1:12 am
@Todd: good points about using precedence outside of jurisdiction of the case. Like you said, it's unheard of except for reference.
TenajComment by Tenaj - February 16, 2012, 5:33 pm
It's a stupid case. A waste of time and money.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.