Obama using computer-generated Twitterbots

[Chadeaux]

Commands the courts ?? Last time I checked the court system was a separate leg of the 3 legged stool. And last time I checked the Supreme Court was not stacked with liberals.

Did bush command the courts when Florida ruled in favor of the republicans during that election??

When the video of the New Black Panther Party members at the polling place with batons surfaced, Eric Holder refused to prosecute.

Can anyone say with absolute certainty that these men with batons were not intimidating voters? Can anyone say with certainty this did not prevent anyone from voting?

The answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

The truth is these persons should have been prosecuted for their actions, but Mr. Holder --- appointed by What's his name to be the Attorney General of the United States --- refused to do anything saying (in effect) that he saw nothing wrong with it.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[0121stockpicker]

When the video of the New Black Panther Party members at the polling place with batons surfaced, Eric Holder refused to prosecute.

Can anyone say with absolute certainty that these men with batons were not intimidating voters? Can anyone say with certainty this did not prevent anyone from voting?

The answer to both questions is a resounding NO!

The truth is these persons should have been prosecuted for their actions, but Mr. Holder --- appointed by What's his name to be the Attorney General of the United States --- refused to do anything saying (in effect) that he saw nothing wrong with it.

Why do you think it would be something that the attorney general would prosecute. Any local, muni, state official could have prosecuted if they saw fit. The local police could have been called in - correct.

And listen to your above statement - "can anyone say with absolute certainty" ... You know better than that - using an absolute. You can't "prove" anything with "absolute certainty".

 

[Chadeaux]

Why do you think it would be something that the attorney general would prosecute. Any local, muni, state official could have prosecuted if they saw fit. The local police could have been called in - correct.

And listen to your above statement - "can anyone say with absolute certainty" ... You know better than that - using an absolute. You can't "prove" anything with "absolute certainty".

BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT WAS BEING BROKEN *******!!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't someone shoplifting, it wasn't a purse snatching, it was ELECTION TAMPERING. That makes it FEDERAL, that makes it Eric Holder's job to prosecute.

 

[dieselram94]

BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT WAS BEING BROKEN *******!!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't someone shoplifting, it wasn't a purse snatching, it was ELECTION TAMPERING. That makes it FEDERAL, that makes it Eric Holder's job to prosecute.

Well said!!!

 

[0121stockpicker]

BECAUSE IT IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT WAS BEING BROKEN *******!!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't someone shoplifting, it wasn't a purse snatching, it was ELECTION TAMPERING. That makes it FEDERAL, that makes it Eric Holder's job to prosecute.

So that liberal Supreme Court won't take up the case?

 

[Dave44]

Stock,, what case? How often does the Supreme court go out and find something to do? Really?

 

[Dano Sverige]

Stock,, what case? How often does the Supreme court go out and find something to do? Really?

Exactly. What case?.....You've just vindicated all Stock's posts on this subject!

 

[Dave44]

I may be wrong,, but it may actually show that you 2 do not know how the Supreme court works either. Like I say, I have never been called up to the Supreme Court, but I am pretty sure that is because there has to be some action before hand.
Vindication, Ha.

 

[0121stockpicker]

I may be wrong,, but it may actually show that you 2 do not know how the Supreme court works either. Like I say, I have never been called up to the Supreme Court, but I am pretty sure that is because there has to be some action before hand.
Vindication, Ha.

Dave - "called up to the Supreme Court" ? I have no idea what you are talking about but you do realize that they don't use juries, correct?

And if you find yourself typing that "I may be wrong" - prob best just to stop typing.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Stock,, what case? How often does the Supreme court go out and find something to do? Really?

Dave, do you not know how the Supreme Court "works"?

 

[Dave44]

Dave, do you not know how the Supreme Court "works"?

I may be missing the finer points, Or are you? I thought that the Supreme Court may hear a case if one is brought to them, I did not think they could go and get a news headline, make a case for it and deliver a ruling if no suit was started.

Are you saying they can see you jaywalking, haul you up to the supreme court, even though no one cared, and deliver some kind of ruling?(presumably on the Constitutionality of the way you walk). Is that really within the scope of the court?

That is what you are saying right? Holder said no case, the Supreme Court slaps his hand and says we will take this from you because we are bored?


No Juries lol nice.
Playing super obtuse now right? Gotcha.

 

[Dave44]

Dave - "called up to the Supreme Court" ? I have no idea what you are talking about but you do realize that they don't use juries, correct?

And if you find yourself typing that "I may be wrong" - prob best just to stop typing.

Maybe this could help both of us out! I figured that while you need to be the smartest guy in the room it would be helpful for you to understand why you are wrong.
U.S. Supreme Court Procedures

Here is an excerpt. Let me know if you do not understand this part.

• Writs of Certiorari

Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases, and it usually only does so if the case could have national significance, might harmonize conflicting decisions in the federal Circuit courts, and/or could have precedential value. In fact, the Court accepts between 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue).
The Supreme Court has its own set of rules. According to these rules, four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. Five of the nine Justices must vote in order to grant a stay, e.g., a stay of execution in a death penalty case. Under certain instances, one Justice may grant a stay pending review by the entire Court.

Again,, "I may be wrong" but does it say that the supreme court can proactively go out and find a reason to exist, like the weather channel?

If you start a conversation with the premise that you are smarter than the next guy... should you keep that to yourself? Indeed.

 

[Chadeaux]

So that liberal Supreme Court won't take up the case?

First, there would have to be a case presented to a criminal court. Then, regardless of the outcome, it would have to be appealed to a higher court each time a verdict is delivered until it reached SCOTUS.

Then, and ONLY then, could they legally consider it.

Eric Holder is the AG. HE would have to have brought the charges for a Federal indictment before it can go to court.

Since he refuses to address the action, SCOTUS is not in a position to rule.

Didn't you take civics in High School? Should be a required course.

 

[Chadeaux]

Exactly. What case?.....You've just vindicated all Stock's posts on this subject!

Actually, Stockpicker showed his lack of knowledge of simple U.S. Court Procedure.

Dave, do you not know how the Supreme Court "works"?

Perhaps you should understand how the Supreme Court works before you spout off such silliness as asking why they didn't take this matter up.

You already know that Holder refused to try the case. Therefore there is zero possibility of it reaching SCOTUS --- so why all the silliness?

BTW, I am looking forward to them fixing the elevator at the U.S. Courthouse. This fat boy is getting really tired of climbing the steps a couple of times each month. Not as young as I used to be.

 

[0121stockpicker]

Actually, Stockpicker showed his lack of knowledge of simple U.S. Court Procedure.

Perhaps you should understand how the Supreme Court works before you spout off such silliness as asking why they didn't take this matter up.

You already know that Holder refused to try the case. Therefore there is zero possibility of it reaching SCOTUS --- so why all the silliness?

And the case of voter fraud or election irregularities would be taken up by a state court - correct. And would not immediately involve the attorney general correct. Plenty of examples out there of challenged election. You can look any of them up.

 

[Dave44]

I get it, now that you are proven to be uninformed you try to make it look like you planned it all along? The old critical thinking, logical process outlined in "Rules For Radicals" right? Nice sidestep. You are really a gov appointee aren't you?

 

[Red James Cash]

Stockpicker would make a nice kapo wouldnt he?

 

[Dave44]

Stockpicker would make a nice kapo wouldnt he?

HAH, you may be on to something there!

 

[Red James Cash]

HAH, you may be on to something there!

LOL,Too bad he doesnt know what happens to kapos before they get to comfortable in the position.Tisk Tisk.

 

[Chadeaux]

And the case of voter fraud or election irregularities would be taken up by a state court - correct. And would not immediately involve the attorney general correct. Plenty of examples out there of challenged election. You can look any of them up.

It can't be taken up by a State Court or State's Attorney General as it is a FEDERAL MATTER. What part of that is confusing?

The New Black Panther Party broke FEDERAL LAW by intimidating voters. What's his name profited from it. He appointed Eric Holder to be AG. Holder repaid him by not prosecuting The New Black Panther Party.

Thus, no case has taken place because IT CAN'T.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot: Let's say the KKK decided to do the same thing in Selma, Alabama - what would happen?

Race riots that would make Chuckie Manson chuckle. Helter Skelter indeed! Federal law broken? Holder would be all over it like white on rice.