Obama Petition

[Guest]

Thosands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the United States and not just assurances from party officials.

Within 24 hours of it's launch more than 28, 500 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor, Joseph Fara. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=81698

Sign the petition:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=81550

:agree: :agree: :agree:

[Guest]

Thosands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the United States and not just assurances from party officials.

Within 24 hours of it's launch more than 28, 500 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor, Joseph Fara. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=81698

Sign the petition:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=81550

:agree: :agree: :agree:


Get over it we had to get over Bush stealing the election in 2000.

[Guest]

28,500 ? Not very impressive considering that at last count, 2007,
Population of the USA was 301,139,947!

Oh no is this political?????????? must run for my life:crap2::crap2::crap2:

[Guest]

Get over it we had to get over Bush stealing the election in 2000.

barf

Any basis in fact for this asinine claim? Just because morons repeat a lie for 8 years does not make it the truth.

[Guest]

barf

Any basis in fact for this asinine claim? Just because morons repeat a lie for 8 years does not make it the truth.

There have been books written about Hillary killing Vince Foster..now Obama really isn't an American.

You believe what you want but I can believe what I want. If you really want some of my links I will post them.

[Guest]

barf

Any basis in fact for this asinine claim? Just because morons repeat a lie for 8 years does not make it the truth.


Here ya go Muncle...

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

And its not nice to call people names...I would put my IQ up against anyones.

[Guest]

:1rotfl: When Jesus comes back he intends to rule over the US and he was not born here. What will we do oh my oh my what will we do.

[Guest]

There have been books written about Hillary killing Vince Foster..now Obama really isn't an American.

You believe what you want but I can believe what I want. If you really want some of my links I will post them.

I agree, I can not beleive we hearing this again. what next??????

[Guest]

This is just too funny! Get over it - the Republicans lost. End of story.

[Guest]

GEEZ people,isn't it time to move on with your life?????????

[Guest]

And its not nice to call people names...:ohdear:

[Guest]

From a die-hard conservative (me):

Yeah, let's throw BO out of office, spend 500 million and two years on another election, and still elect a democrat (Hillary?) into office. No thanks!

Let him do his job and hope for the best.

And Cologal: You may indeed have a high IQ but posting a source from a somewhat dubious website from New Zealand to pass as a reference just doesn't cut it. I'm sure that you could produce many other web sources for the same information but it is all questionable. Both sides of that 2000 argument could point to possible issues but that was 8 years ago! It's over.

[Guest]

This idea is...

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj316/Villages_Kahuna/images-1.jpg

[Guest]

From a die-hard conservative (me):

Yeah, let's throw BO out of office, spend 500 million and two years on another election, and still elect a democrat (Hillary?) into office. No thanks!

Let him do his job and hope for the best.

And Cologal: You may indeed have a high IQ but posting a source from a somewhat dubious website from New Zealand to pass as a reference just doesn't cut it. I'm sure that you could produce many other web sources for the same information but it is all questionable. Both sides of that 2000 argument could point to possible issues but that was 8 years ago! It's over.

Actually that was my point in my original post and I have moved on. But then came the moron post. A lot of people here use foreign links but Black Box Voting.com is a US organization headed up by Bev Harris. That was the information I was after.

[Guest]

Thosands of people are jumping aboard a petition that demands documentation of President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the highest office in the United States and not just assurances from party officials.

Within 24 hours of it's launch more than 28, 500 petitioners have joined the effort coordinated by WND founder and editor, Joseph Fara. Read the latest now on WND.com.
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageld=81698

Sign the petition:

What a bunch of CR.P. Here we go again. Eight more years of bashing. Get over it. "Thousands of people" doesn't make it right. If these people would just find something a little more productive to do with their lives, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in right now. I just wish the conservative right would grow up. It makes me want to barf... Hey that rhymes. :coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Up usually does rhyme with Up. Just joking!:laugh::laugh:

The conservative right will probably bitch for 8 years the same way that the liberal left bitched for the past 8. The rest of us will just get on with our lives.

[Guest]

The whole petition thing is so stupid. They're trying to claim he isn't a citizen so he isn't eligible to be President. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there. So basically, these people who are claiming he's not a legitimate citizen don't have a leg to stand on. Just another conspiracy theory. I'm suprised people can be duped into signing a petition like that.

[Guest]

The whole petition thing is so stupid. They're trying to claim he isn't a citizen so he isn't eligible to be President. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there. So basically, these people who are claiming he's not a legitimate citizen don't have a leg to stand on. Just another conspiracy theory. I'm suprised people can be duped into signing a petition like that.

For clarification only: Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution covers the Office of the President. Within that section it states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The "at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution" and "fourteen Years a Resident" was concerned with the fact that all of the initial candidates for President were British citizens prior to the ratification of the Constitution and thus not "natural born Citizens. "

Since the Constitution did not have a "pre-date" for when someone could be considered natural born, there could be no "natural born" except persons born after the ratification date of the Constitution. Hence, the or a Citizen of... , at the time of...and the fourteen Years.. language.

[Guest]

:cus: to have to listen to all the ragging on about ones candidate. Although it sorta reminds me of those who ragged about Palin's clothes et al.

Ooopps I didn't mean to infer fair play....I forgot the rules of engagement for partisan politics.

BTK:laugh:

[Guest]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124212358AAxsLzv

There is a Conference at the US Supreme Court on December 5, 2008, to consider a challenge made about Senator Obama's qualifications to be President. This comes from New Jersey in a case by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells the NJ Secretary of State.

[Guest]

I guess I just don't get the point. Let's say for the sake of argument that for some reason Obama were disqualified. Then Biden would be President. Is that what they are aiming for? Doesn't make sense.

[Guest]

....hypothesizing only.....let's say he is disqualified....I would think the election would be would go back to the "qualified" candidate and McCain wins.

The election is not that the party that wins gets to keep it....I really don't know, but in ANY other event where a contender is disqualified the win goes to the opponent.....like it or not!!!

Anyway if there was even a prayer of a case it would have been pushed very hard prior to the election.

On one of my favorite aspects...it surely must not be an issue.....BECAUSE...if it was the media would have been all over it.....yeah right:1rotfl: The subject being absent from the media is conspiquous(? spelling) by it's absence...eh?

Sorry I could not resist!

BTK

[Guest]

The whole petition thing is so stupid. They're trying to claim he isn't a citizen so he isn't eligible to be President. The Fourteenth Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Since Hawaii is part of the United States, even if Barack Obama's parents were both non-U.S. citizens who hadn't even set foot in the country until just before he was born, he'd still qualify as a natural-born citizen.Some have claimed that Barack Obama's Hawaiian birthplace doesn't qualify him as a natural-born citizen because Hawaii was not yet a state when he was born. This claim is wrong: Hawaii was admitted as the 50th state almost two years before Barack Obama's birth there. So basically, these people who are claiming he's not a legitimate citizen don't have a leg to stand on. Just another conspiracy theory. I'm suprised people can be duped into signing a petition like that.

I’m afraid there are a great number of dupes... I mean dopes, in this country.:cryin2:

[Guest]

....hypothesizing only.....let's say he is disqualified....I would think the election would be would go back to the "qualified" candidate and McCain wins.

The election is not that the party that wins gets to keep it....I really don't know, but in ANY other event where a contender is disqualified the win goes to the opponent.....like it or not!!!

Anyway if there was even a prayer of a case it would have been pushed very hard prior to the election.

On one of my favorite aspects...it surely must not be an issue.....BECAUSE...if it was the media would have been all over it.....yeah right:1rotfl: The subject being absent from the media is conspiquous(? spelling) by it's absence...eh?

Sorry I could not resist!

BTK

Well, I wasn't going to weigh into this, but....

The case before the Supreme Court challenges the eligibility of both Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama's eligibility is questioned on the content of the Hawaiian birth record which has, under Hawaiian law, been kept access-restricted. Mr. McCain's eligibility is questioned as to whether he is a "native born citizen" (there is no question about him being a "citizen) by virtue of not having been born within any State, but born in a trust territory of US citizens stationed in that territory by government orders.

These are interesting legal challenges. SCOTUS could toss the case, agree to hear all or part, or summarily rule.

[Guest]

Hold it guys, This is being investigated and if there's anything to it we could have a hellava mess..... There is precedence for this kind of scrutiny and it has created havoc twice before in history..............

Now as far as adding your name to a petition on the INTERNET goes ,,,Its a waste of time because an e-mail petition is not acceptable by any governmental organization........

Now if anything does surface about Obama's true origin the democrats have enough money to squash it and bury it....It will never see the light of day..and I'm not so sure that thats a bad thing..
I'm a republican but Obama has done everything right so far , so let give him a fair shot at this ...If he turns out to be another FDR , then we all win..

A prior poster made a remark about her IQ . I have a minor DEGREE in anthropology and by the looks of her forehead I don't think comparing IQ'S is such a good idea, especially if you are sensitive........

rock collector fumar ..............:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Guest]

Hold it guys, This is being investigated and if there's anything to it we could have a hellava mess..... There is precedence for this kind of scrutiny and it has created havoc twice before in history..............

Now as far as adding your name to a petition on the INTERNET goes ,,,Its a waste of time because an e-mail petition is not acceptable by any governmental organization........

Now if anything does surface about Obama's true origin the democrats have enough money to squash it and bury it....It will never see the light of day..and I'm not so sure that thats a bad thing..
I'm a republican but Obama has done everything right so far , so let give him a fair shot at this ...If he turns out to be another FDR , then we all win..

A prior poster made a remark about her IQ . I have a minor DEGREE in anthropology and by the looks of her forehead I don't think comparing IQ'S is such a good idea, especially if you are sensitive........

rock collector fumar ..............:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Geez Fumar I was getting ready to pull out the I agree sign. Can you imagine The Great Fumar and I agreeing on anything? Then came the comment about my forehead....LOL

I agree with everything above the forehead comment!

[Guest]

....hypothesizing only.....let's say he is disqualified....I would think the election would be would go back to the "qualified" candidate and McCain wins.

The election is not that the party that wins gets to keep it....I really don't know, but in ANY other event where a contender is disqualified the win goes to the opponent.....like it or not!!!

Anyway if there was even a prayer of a case it would have been pushed very hard prior to the election.

On one of my favorite aspects...it surely must not be an issue.....BECAUSE...if it was the media would have been all over it.....yeah right:1rotfl: The subject being absent from the media is conspiquous(? spelling) by it's absence...eh?

Sorry I could not resist!

BTK

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

[Guest]

On one of my favorite aspects...it surely must not be an issue.....BECAUSE...if it was the media would have been all over it.....yeah right The subject being absent from the media is conspiquous(? spelling) by it's absence...eh?

Sorry I could not resist!

BTK


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx

[Guest]

I'm not a lawyer, but even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case--which I think is highly doubtful--they almost certainly wouldn't consider the evidence, hear the arguments, make their decisions and write their briefs before December 15, when the Electoral College votes. And I don't think they're going to permit the U.S. to proceed leaderless, even for a short time, given the critical problems we currently face.

I predict that the Court simply declines to hear the case and it's all over. We'll have a new President in time for a cocktail on the afternoon of December 15!

[Guest]

In a few weeks he has demonstrated remarkable leadership. The Country does not need such devisive (and absolutely insane) distraction. As a Republican I am embarrassed to think that any reasonable member of the GOP would raise this issue at this point. I prefer to believe that this foolish notion surfacing again is likely due to subversive hate groups who have other agendas.

[Guest]

In a few weeks he has demonstrated remarkable leadership. The Country does not need such devisive (and absolutely insane) distraction. As a Republican I am embarrassed to think that any reasonable member of the GOP would raise this issue at this point. I prefer to believe that this foolish notion surfacing again is likely due to subversive hate groups who have other agendas.
This case (Donofrio v. Wells) going to conference at SCOTUS is not an anti-Obama matter. The eligibility of both candidates, for different but logical reasons, is challenged.

The rules of court at SCOTUS first has the justices nominate a case for full court review. A nominated case then goes to closed-door conference where all justices vote whether the court should hear the case. A minimum of four justices must agree that the case be reviewed before it can be docketed on the court calendar. If the four "YEA" votes aren't received, the matter dies there, and the lower court ruling stands. If the matter does get the 4+ go-ahead votes, the Chief Justice can direct the matter be fast-tracked due to exigent circumstances, and order the matter be calendared on-or-before a certain date.

The SCOTUS options are several, and include: 1) dismissing the matter via agreement with the lower court's ruling, or stating "lack of standing" of the complaintant (Donofrio), or declaring the matter moot, or simply not getting the required four+ votes to proceed further; and 2) agreeing to hear the case and rule, in whole or in part, as it concerns either candidate.

If on the chance the case clears conference and get docketed and the Obama segment of the case is to be reviewed (please always remember the case has two separate segments), there is sufficient time to hear the matter and rule prior to the inauguration. It is unlikely (but not impossible) that SCOTUS would issue an injunction to delay an Electoral College action, as the matter may indeed be decided in favor of the respondent (Wells, the NJ Attorney General) prior to the inauguration.

The irony is that the McCain segment of this case has the strongest Constitutional argument concerning eligibility ("native born citizen") to be President. The Obama segment seems more a matter of evidentiary disclosure, in that what is the standard of proof a state can and should demand to verify the eligibility of a person in order to place that person on the ballot.

SCOTUS is not a bunch of radical activists. It is an appellate court, and does what it's supposed to - review cases decided by lower courts, decide if the a case should be reviewed at the SCOTUS level, and the decide accordingly what should happen next - 1) affirm the lower court decision; or 2)reverse the lower court decision and rule for the complaintant; or 3) reverse the lower court decision and remand (send back) the case to the lower court for that court to rehear the matter.

Enough of this - it's time to baste the bird....

[Guest]

So now I have a question!

Why wasn't this issue addressed long before he was ever even nominated or allowed to run?

Don't the potential nominees have to submit some sort of paperwork to prove they are eligible?

This makes NO sense to me at all.

I agree with rschoffer (I know scary huh....) but Obama has shown remarkable leadership in the last few weeks. He is putting together a team of some of the smartest, most respected people in the country.

I have such hope and faith at this point. He is acting in a manor that a true President should act. Respectful to his country and strong in his character.

I would think that this was all taken care of prior to him ever announcing that he was running...

We have backround checks and applications for every other job in the world, where you must show proof of citizenship. I would imagine the application for President would include this...if indeed there is an "application", so to speak!

[Guest]

So now I have a question!

Why wasn't this issue addressed long before he was ever even nominated or allowed to run?

Don't the potential nominees have to submit some sort of paperwork to prove they are eligible?

This makes NO sense to me at all.

I agree with rschoffer (I know scary huh....) but Obama has shown remarkable leadership in the last few weeks. He is putting together a team of some of the smartest, most respected people in the country.

I have such hope and faith at this point. He is acting in a manor that a true President should act. Respectful to his country and strong in his character.

I would think that this was all taken care of prior to him ever announcing that he was running...

We have backround checks and applications for every other job in the world, where you must show proof of citizenship. I would imagine the application for President would include this...if indeed there is an "application", so to speak!


I believe this entire thing to be a farce, but will reply to your comment as to "
Why wasn't this issue addressed long before he was ever even nominated or allowed to run?"


There were MANY MANY issues buried by the press during the campaign, not just this one which is minor in my mind !

[Guest]

There are many situations reviewed by courts which are "obvious" or which should have been resolved long before the courts get involved.

Suffice to say, in the end the law of the land will eventually prevail, and that the correct decision according to the law (and not public opinion or convenience) will result.

If we don't believe that to be true, then what are we doing here in the USA? I'm sure there's some anarchistic hideaway somewhere where we can live without laws if we aren't satisfied with the form of government we have. Here in the USA person can question those who rush the pursuit of their own goals.

Again, those who are looking at the Donofrio v. Wells case as an anti-Obama action need to drop the paranoia, research the case history and content, and get on with their lives. If you are afraid of SCOTUS, then you need to find some land where there are no courts and one party always rules.

Ironically, had Sen. McCain prevailed in the presidential election, the DNC would be touting this case as the most important to come before SCOTUS in 100 years.

[Guest]

E-MAIL PETITIONS ARE A WASTE OF TIME AS THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED AS A LEGAL DOCUMENT BY ANY BRANCH OF US GOVT. THEY JUST PITCH THEM AND IT MAKES SENSE AS ALL PETITIONS HAVE TO BE ACCOMPANIED WITH A VALID SIGNATURE .......

NON VALID FUMAR ............:sad:

[Guest]

I believe this entire thing to be a farce, but will reply to your comment as to "
Why wasn't this issue addressed long before he was ever even nominated or allowed to run?"


There were MANY MANY issues buried by the press during the campaign, not just this one which is minor in my mind !

BUCCO....I have missed talking to you on here....haven't ventured in much to this side of TOTV.....

With that said...I know you feel there were many issues that were ignored...and I am sorry you feel that way....BUT I am SO very glad you feel that this one was/is a farce!! I know you do your homework!! thanks!!


Nice to hear from you...:beer3:

[Guest]

The Scope from Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

[Guest]

What about babies born in the U.S. of illegal immigrants? Are they not U.S. citizens? It would seem the citizenship status of his parents is a moot point as long as he was born in a U.S. State or Territory I believe he would be considered a citizen.

[Guest]

The Scope from Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp

Well this took care of all my questions....THANKS Islandgirl!

[Guest]

The argument presented on Snopes for Barack Obama's eligibility seems compelling. I guess that leaves the only issue on the table the veracity of his birth and birth certificate issued in Hawaii. If it's this clearcut, it would make sense that the Supreme Court not waste its time with the appeal.

But again, I'm not a lawyer.

[Guest]

The argument presented on Snopes for Barack Obama's eligibility seems compelling. I guess that leaves the only issue on the table the veracity of his birth and birth certificate issued in Hawaii. If it's this clearcut, it would make sense that the Supreme Court not waste its time with the appeal.

But again, I'm not a lawyer.
Again, it is short-sighted to look at Donofrio v. Wells as an "Obama-only" case. There are several legal issues at stake, if SCOTUS decides now is the time to resolve them. Perhaps the most critical (at least to me) is whether children borne of US parents abroad are not just "citizens," but also "native born citizens" as well. While this would seem to be "obvious", nothing on the books makes this point clear, and it is indeed ambiguous legally.

There have been numerous Congressional changes to nationality law in the past 200 years. As what often happens, the changes occur after-the-fact in that a situation arose, someone was "harmed" by the law on the books, and Congress changed the law because of the "fact" and "harm" involved.

So, SCOTUS can rule on whether the law as it reads today was or was not correctly applied, and Congress can the amend the law if it chooses to do so based on any court's ruling. Again, courts are not in the "make law" business, but are to insure that the law, as written and intended by legislature, is applied accurately.

That's how our nation's laws have evolved since the 1780's.

That's the American way.

[Guest]

If the issue which is the basis of the litigation is deemed important enough for SCOTUS to hear and rule upon, then I hope they do so. But if the lawsuit is deemed to be either politically-motivated or frivolous, then I hope SCOTUS decides to permit the lower court ruling to stand and refuses to hear the case.

If they do decide to hear the case, I would be hopeful that their decision would be fast-tracked sufficiently so as not to interfere with either the election process by the Electoral College or the transfer of political administrations that appears to be well underway. The U.S. is facing so many serious problems that we can ill afford either.

[Guest]

If the issue which is the basis of the litigation is deemed important enough for SCOTUS to hear and rule upon, then I hope they do so. But if the lawsuit is deemed to be either politically-motivated or frivolous, then I hope SCOTUS decides to permit the lower court ruling to stand and refuses to hear the case.

If they do decide to hear the case, I would be hopeful that their decision would be fast-tracked sufficiently so as not to interfere with either the election process by the Electoral College or the transfer of political administrations that appears to be well underway. The U.S. is facing so many serious problems that we can ill afford either.

The beat goes on, and the justices who comprise SCOTUS are no babes in the woods. They know the stakes, but will do what's right even if it is unpopular. No matter what they do, someone will not be content.

I'm just not worried. I've seen SCOTUS operate at break-neck speed when the situation called for expediency, and I've seen them be deliberate so that no mistake which makes things worse occurs. We need to trust the system that has worked well for 2+ centuries.

The campaign fearmongers try to make a lot about the court members, their personal ideologies, and the next nominees to SCOTUS. What most of America never seems to realize is the humans comprising this court - their personal feelings - really don't play into their decisions.

Any attorney or judge worth a hoot knows the difference between applying the law and applying subjective opinion, and won't do the latter - their ethics won't allow it. These are 9 of the most ethical people on the planet, and purists when it comes to the Constitution, the U.S. Code and in resolving conflicts when issues arise on both. They are not the enemy, but true guardians of the nation and make the country live up to the written word.

[Guest]

Per Steve Z
"Any attorney or judge worth a hoot knows the difference between applying the law and applying subjective opinion, and won't do the latter - their ethics won't allow it."

The last time I checked the oxymoron 'jumbo shrimp' was exceeded in its untrue representation by only one term - 'legal ethics'. I do not hold this belief of the judges comprising the Supreme Court, but do believe it can accurately be ascribed to most practitioners of the law.

[Guest]

Per Steve Z
"Any attorney or judge worth a hoot knows the difference between applying the law and applying subjective opinion, and won't do the latter - their ethics won't allow it."

The last time I checked the oxymoron 'jumbo shrimp' was exceeded in its untrue representation by only one term - 'legal ethics'. I do not hold this belief of the judges comprising the Supreme Court, but do believe it can accurately be ascribed to most practitioners of the law.
And I respectfully disagree.

The lawyer's job is to advocate his/her client's position in the most favorable light to the client and the situation while adhering to the law and facts, and to counsel the client in what the law does indeed allow. That's the adversarial system we have, and it works. The skill and knowledge of each attorney differs, as does the same for carpenters and bus drivers. As a result, some tend to be more successful for their clients than others.

Do some tend to bring themselves and their clients to the edge of the legal envelope? Sure, they do. As long as they don't cross the line and become accessories-after-the-fact or incite perjury, or otherwise break the law, they are doing what others not familiar with the law or the legal system wish they could on their own. If they cross the line in any way - personal or professional - the costs are severe and dramatic, and often lead to loss of license, even if the behavior is totally acceptable and forgivable in any other occupation.

Are there crooked lawyers? Sure, there are. Just like there are crooked physicians, accountants, building contractors, car mechanics, hot dog vendors, and any other occupation. The percentage is small, but like all crooks they tend to generate all the notoriety.

[Guest]

...that the nine justices that finally navigate the process for nomination and confirmation to the highest court in the land won't let their decisions be influenced by political idealology or advocacy of a particular position, then we're all in a whole lot of trouble.

The people who finally rises to that position have been extremely well-schooled in both the written and common law, in most cases have already served in a judicial positions as well as those of advocacy, and probably understands the weight and importance of each and every one of his decisions better than almost anyone else. People who are selected for nomination to the Supreme Court know and respect the position in which they might serve, probably better than we do.

Presidents can nominate candidates who might not meet the standards for service, but fortunately the process for their confirmation almost always weeds out the unqualified. The names Harriett Meiers and Robert Bork come to mind. I say "almost" only because I can't think of a justice that has navigated the process of nomination and confirmation, but I leave a small amount of room that it maybe that might have happened in the past.

Is there room for different interpretations of the written as well as case law? Of course. Both were written and/or decided by humans who might have been imprecise in writing or interpreting the law or may have decided cases on facts or situations which may no longer apply to the current times. Can a justice who is selected because he reaches decisions based on "a strict interpretation of the Constitution" be relied upon to always decide by that standard in each and every case? No, of course not. Again, neither the written law or the cases which provide precedents are sufficiently precise to always permit that.

The decisions made by the highest appealate court in the land considers the evidence, decisions, arguments and cases that were produced by advocates and judges who range from appointees to elected and whose education, experience and qualifications are often far less than the justices themselves. They are not supposed to "make" law from the bench, but often the documentation of the cases they decide is far from adequate to prevent the influence of their own experience and character.

But we MUST have the confidence that the Presidents that we elect will make responsible choices in their nominations, that our free press will provide the transparency of the nominee's character and body of judicial decisions, and that the Senate plays the proper balancing role in the confirmation of the candidate's nomination.

The framers of our Constitution did a brilliant job in designing a near flawless process for the selection and balancing of the powers of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government. Our responsibility is to remain confident and supportive of the results, and vigilant that the process is not and cannot be changed.

[Guest]

Steve, I tend to agree that justices, esp in the higher courts, do rule in an honorable manner. The issue is how the individual judge determines what is the correct interpretation. A good case in point (no pun intended) would be the infamous public domain ruling when SCOTUS ruled against private property rights v. public advantages by 5-4. Yes it was a liberal/conservative split, but the decision reflected not political intent but the basic political and social beliefs of the justices. In many cases, a decision may be cut and dried --- in others, there is room for interpretation. When interpretation enters the picture, those social/political beliefs take over. Another example would be the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. If there is any wiggle room in a case, you know it will come down with the most liberal ruling.

That is what makes the the selection criteria of POTUS and the make-up of the Senate so important. In recent years, the Senate seemingly has almost usurped the power to designate judges. The current Senate will likely be a rubber stamp on choices, but had McCain won, he would have a very difficult time getting confirmations. Look at the battles Bush had with Alito and especially the lower courts. Not that long ago, Ginsburg, a confirmed Liberal, got 97 votes and Scalia, an equally confirmed Conservative, got 98 votes.

Some comments Obama has made about judicial picks scare me. Seemingly, he wants judges who will use emotion in making decisions in preference to the law. In discussing his vote against Roberts, he stated that court cases demanded "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." He has said he wants judges who know what it's like to be poor, black, gay, old, etc. I want judges who know the law and leave the making of those laws to the legislatures. But I'll worry about that later.

An aside: Steve, if you don't mind my asking, for whom have you worked in the District? You're always knowledgeable about gov't workings and a lot of the behind the scenes actions.

[Guest]

Steve, I tend to agree that justices, esp in the higher courts, do rule in an honorable manner. The issue is how the individual judge determines what is the correct interpretation. A good case in point (no pun intended) would be the infamous public domain ruling when SCOTUS ruled against private property rights v. public advantages by 5-4. Yes it was a liberal/conservative split, but the decision reflected not political intent but the basic political and social beliefs of the justices. In many cases, a decision may be cut and dried --- in others, there is room for interpretation. When interpretation enters the picture, those social/political beliefs take over.

I agree. Another example is the Bush vs. Gore decision by the Supreme Court in which five conservative judges relied on "innovative" readings of the Constitution to resolve the presidential dispute. There were four dissenters, with Justice Stevens lameting that the actual loser of this presidential election was “the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

[Guest]

...
...
But we MUST have the confidence that the Presidents that we elect will make responsible choices in their nominations, that our free press will provide the transparency of the nominee's character and body of judicial decisions, and that the Senate plays the proper balancing role in the confirmation of the candidate's nomination.

....
I don't count on the "free press" doing anything that is not in ITS self interest, and that definitely does not include providing objective and impartial reporting of facts to the nation and/or the world. This past campaign is testament to how the press avoids stressing anything it doesn't want to, and outright BSing to drive public opinion into specific directions about people and issues. If we rely solely on the "free press" for our information, we will definitely have no freedom.

[Guest]

I don't count on the "free press" doing anything that is not in ITS self interest, and that definitely does not include providing objective and impartial reporting of facts to the nation and/or the world. This past campaign is testament to how the press avoids stressing anything it doesn't want to, and outright BSing to drive public opinion into specific directions about people and issues. If we rely solely on the "free press" for our information, we will definitely have no freedom.


AMEN AMEN to this. There is/was so much ignored by the media during the campaign...both primary and general....that will dribble out in the next few years and some folks will wonder...HOW !!! The press control a lot of what we "think". Heard a fellow last week, sorry do not know his name but a radio commentator (not Limbaugh or his ilk) saying that he wonders how the main stream media will ever get over the coverage of the campaign.

And it has to do so much with what the particular media outlet believes and how it leans. Today in the New York Post which leans right there is a front page article about Democratic congress folks spending a luxury couple days at an island retreat, but you will not find that story anywhere else. If you read faithfully ONLY the New York Post, guess what you may think. If you read the New York Daily News, which leans left you may think that anyone Republican is the devil himself.

I use only the two NY papers to illustrate the point. TV is worse, and while the radio side has been more conservative, THAT according to the "news" is going to go by the wayside as the left wants to pass laws to restrict and make equal on the radio, which is amazing to me, but more on that if it comes to fruition.

[Guest]

I agree. Another example is the Bush vs. Gore decision by the Supreme Court in which five conservative judges relied on "innovative" readings of the Constitution to resolve the presidential dispute. There were four dissenters, with Justice Stevens lameting that the actual loser of this presidential election was “the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

One person's "innovative" is the other person's "obvious."

SCOTUS may not perfect, and is again is just one of three prongs in the triad of government. That being said, the justices do find themselves with situations where they have favor with several arguments, and make the best choices they can justify based on demonstration via written opinion representing that justice's personal interpretation of the matter and ascribed to by others who may or may not add their own writing to the decision.

Do justices simply throw their morality onto the table and say "I will interpret the law based on my subjectivity?" No, that does not happen, or they would not have made it into nomination or confirmation. Can they have diffferent interpretations? Yes, and when that happens, the written opinions, especially of the minority, provide the Legislature with the guidance on what will be required of the Legislature to change laws so that the SCOTUS decision becomes moot when that same situation reappears. If you read the written opinions carefully, the explanation for how that justice ruled is sculpted for legislative action, and don't ever think that justices don't discuss their written opinions (even when they disagree) so that the correct "signals" are given to the other two prongs of the triad as to what to do next.

It is key to remember that SCOTUS decisions are based on today's law as written, and oftentimes even the justices 'admit being personally between a legal rock and a moral hard place. That's why there are so many 5-4 decisions, and a check of the justice's votes often show that 5-4 is not captured by the same "liberal" and "conservative" justices, but a diverse mixture based the facts and not a morality or persuasion. But, the law is the law, and only the Legislature can change it, and 5-4 decisions are basically SCOTUS screaming at the Legislature to get to work on the matter.

If the Legislature ignores billboard-sized notices from SCOTUS as to what's today's written word, then I can't blame any of the nine justices for the failure of the 535 on Capitol Hill to do their jobs.

As a side note, I know a judge who decided he didn't care what the law said, he was going to make his decisions on what he believed was "right" according to his morality and opinion. This judge is a very good man - one I would personally want on my side in almost any situation. He never looked at a case with prejudice, and really believed in his "gut" to make the best call. He never cared if an appellate court overruled his decisions, which happened more to him than any judge I know. The SCOTUS justices know that they are the "end of the line" legally, and work to meet the "letter of the law," whatever that may be, because they can't rely on their "gut" since there is no check beyond them except an all-too- often self-serving and apathetic Legislature.

[Guest]

I found it interesting that one of the Supreme Court justices themselves came right out and said that the judges are not impartial guardians of the law.

[Guest]

I found it interesting that one of the Supreme Court justices themselves came right out and said that the judges are not impartial guardians of the law.
At least they still have humility....