What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
82 Comments
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -6/+29Right, it couldn't have anything to do with the FACT that Berg's lawsuit is a load of crap. Of course, everything is a conspiracy.
- thepoliticalcat, on 01/15/2009, -0/+22Here's a hanky. Dry your tears, the drip is simply disgusting. And here's a quarter. Call someone who cares. Oh, wait, maybe you should call a WAAAAAAHmbulance instead.
- ironhide, on 01/15/2009, -6/+28Wahhh, the Supreme Court doesn't think that Berg has a case so they have to be on the take. Anyone who disagrees with our ***** theory has to be part of the conspiracy.
- supercandy, on 01/15/2009, -9/+29Wonder if he will ask Justice Ginsberg (a Democrat - Clinton appointment) about her nutty ruling on eminent domain, which suggests the Government can just take your property away for any whim it pleases.
- cquinnd, on 01/14/2009, -6/+26I'm sure wnd will have live coverage.
- JenniferInMO, on 01/15/2009, -1/+19They'll have a laugh over the nutters. Obama probably doesn't even know it's going on.
- acroyear2, on 01/15/2009, -2/+19You should probably hold your breath. Seriously.
- eir574, on 01/15/2009, -0/+17@rz8472
Did you also support Berg when he filed a lawsuit claiming Bush and Cheney were personally involved in 9/11? What about when he sued supreme court justices over their decision in Bush v. Gore? - JenniferInMO, on 01/15/2009, -1/+17NONE of the lawsuits "went through." All applications for cert must be evaluated and one of two actions taken: denied or accepted.
Prisoners often spend their time dreaming up crazy lawsuits. If they get rejected they appeal them. At each level, the court has a process to determine whether they will accept or deny the appeal. The prisoner then appeals the denial to the Supreme Court where the same process as the Birfer claims have gone through before being denied. Berg's suits were sitting in the same pile that included cases where prisoners sued because they weren't getting enough peanut butter on their sandwiches or because they couldn't get a replacement toothbrush often enough.
Berg's suit has been resubmitted to all of the conservative and moderate judges. They all had to take the file into conference where they most likely joked about the absurdity. They were all promptly denied. - Alheithinn, on 01/15/2009, -0/+15Hmmm, I commented on this story already today, on another thread. Leave it to the loonies to think there is something sinister in this.
- pintomp3, on 01/15/2009, -5/+19Bush didn't either. His father prepaid.
- JenniferInMO, on 01/15/2009, -1/+15Yes, they should hold their breath!
- Chestnutridge, on 01/15/2009, -0/+12Recently he has let it be known that he has no immediate plan to retire. I expect he will be around for couple of years at least.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -3/+15"Listen up "Supreme Court", I've seen enough Fresh Prince to know that just like Uncle Phil, you're going to try to put a hamper on my super hip first term and try to stop me from speakin' my jive ass State of the Union addresses. And don't think I don't know all about yall's plans to stop me from turning Air Force One into a super sweet ass pimp whip. But forget all that...I'm just here to tell you that after inaugurated, I'm going to bust out a sweet break dance session, then tear the book of Genesis out of that bible y'all gone hand me and roll a phat ass presidential blunt. Speak atcha later. Nice robe, mutha *****. C'mon Joe, we out."
At least that's how I hope it goes... - pintomp3, on 01/15/2009, -2/+14Wow, the birthers just won't give up. I guess btschul will be coming along soon.
- Aethirig, on 01/15/2009, -0/+11.. and all nutty conspiracy theorists will be given body cavity searches before posting on Digg
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -1/+12"Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton also visited the Court in the period before they were inaugurated."
More proof that Dubya never had a good relationship with the law. - ObamaYouth, on 01/15/2009, -1/+12You guys know that Obama doesn't have power over Supreme Court, right?
- Amberfire, on 01/15/2009, -0/+10You think they will take their ***** kicking boots to kick whoever it was that decided that the Bill of Rights "doesn't count"?? I sure as hell would! Damn! At least they wont be able to double talk this President... I think he has a bit more experience with the law than the last one...lol
- kmom5, on 01/15/2009, -0/+10He isn't 'being called into court as a courtesy call'. I know it may come as news to you, but our newly elected presidents usually do this.
FTA:
"They are following a recent tradition of such visits when the White House changes hands. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton also visited the Court in the period before they were inaugurated." - wesholing, on 01/14/2009, -20/+30I guess he won't need to bring the suitcase of cash like Bush did.
- farsetti, on 01/15/2009, -0/+9Yeah! how about a Wahburger and some french cries!
- dtr300, on 01/15/2009, -0/+9
Don't blame that one on Democrats, supercandy. The opposition to that horribly bad ruling included people of all political persuasions.
It's no big deal that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of eminent domain, but they took the further step of ruling that eminent domain could be used to seize property from someone in order to enrich another *private* party (NOT on behalf of government, "howdoyouknow"). So, according to this ruling, if I'm some big company that *might* possibly bring jobs to town, I can come to your nice quite neighborhood and say, "Hey, I want to build these profitable condos and strip malls and whatever I want in your back yard. GTF out." And you could lose in court if you refused to sell. - amoirae, on 01/15/2009, -0/+8Shhhhhh! Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be distracted by a shiny object.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -2/+10Funny how all these "birth certificate fanatics" never cried out as loud with regards to Bush's "missing records" from the Texas Air National Guard...which to this day have not been fully explained or given in complete detail... it was ok for him to be off doing blow somewhere... but then again, Bush ran on a ticket where he promised the talibangelicals that he would ban all abortions and get gays to stop being ummmmm: GAY! How'd that work out for all you religious fanatics?
- JenniferInMO, on 01/15/2009, -3/+11Any chance to bash Obama. The nutters here are just obsessed with finding the most innocent things to bash Obama. He hasn't done anything yet and he is following 8 years of sabotage to our country. You'd think these nutters would be bashing the guy that screwed up the country not the guy who hasn't even tried to fix it yet.
- Jericho6, on 01/15/2009, -4/+11I know Stevens has been waiting for a Democratic President to resign. Wouldn't suprise me to see it happen pretty soon after Obama gets sworn in
- HOWDOYOUKNOW, on 01/15/2009, -6/+13
Yes, they ruled that government can take private property away from anyone, if the government can make more money off of someone else owning it.. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/15/2009, -0/+7#1) Obama was born in Hawaii, and has provided legally admissible evidence of this fact to the general public. The assertions that he was born elsewhere have no evidence and no merit.
#2) Obama is not a communist - his plan is to revert the tax structure to pre-Bush days. The tax pre-Bush structure was in place and accepted by both Republican and Democratic presidents for ninety years. Everyone from Teddy Roosevelt through Eisenhower through Clinton accepted it as a fair tax structure.
Bush came along and took our government surplus and bankrupted our country by using it as a free giveaway to the already wealthy. Not even Ronald Reagan would have done this.
Marxism is about "for each according to his ability, to each according to his need".... Obama hasn't advocated anything close to this, so your assertion that he is a Communist is absurd. - Aethirig, on 01/15/2009, -1/+7I actually came here just for the birther comments.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/15/2009, -2/+8I think this is the "I'm giving you guys enough rope to hang yourself" speech.
The Court's can side with the NeoCons again -- but the country may not survive it. So I think it is pretty shrewd -- at a guess, that Obama is probably going to tell them off the record that he isn't going to be a pushover.
I'd add a bit more carrot and stick than that myself,... but seriously, behind the scenes right now, there is a battle for the future direction of this country. We don't have time to mess around and cater to the Kleptocracy like we did during FDR's administration. This time, we've got to do the right thing out of the gate.
>> I don't se this as sinister -- I see it as navigating the shark infested waters, and I think Obama is being very shrewd. - marillion, on 01/15/2009, -0/+6" ... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." From the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Eminent domain is a fully legal way that the government can take property. The government is required to provide "just compensation." Historically, Eminent domain is supposed to serve the public good. Various jurisdictions have often placed limits on what circumstances can be used to eminent domain property. I think it reasonable to use eminent domain for schools or fire stations or hospitals. I think it abysmal when it gets applied so that a well connected "land developer" can make a fortune building a shopping mall. - ApokalypseNow, on 01/15/2009, -1/+6Um, President-elect Obama was born in Hawaii.
- ironhide, on 01/15/2009, -1/+6Please present proof of your statement.
- inactive, on 01/15/2009, -2/+7I'd prefer if Joe Biden stayed the ***** OUT of the Supreme Court :-/
- Jericho6, on 01/15/2009, -1/+6I've heard similar things, but I don't buy it. Plus at his age, health has to be a concern.
- rand0mm0nkey, on 01/15/2009, -1/+5Not for 4 more days...
- WafflePirate, on 01/15/2009, -2/+6For real?
- Verchiel77, on 01/16/2009, -0/+4Bound to find some heads that haven't seen the light of day in weeks...
- ApokalypseNow, on 01/15/2009, -1/+5Why would they? Obama is under no legal obligation to provide his original birth certificate to the general public, and the USSC is not a vetting agency. Further, Obama has released his CoLB, which constitutes prima facie evidence for the fact of his birth in the state of Hawaii, admissible in any court unless rebutted (including *that* court).
- magus_melchior, on 01/16/2009, -0/+4Umm... try looking harder. There are photos of the SCOTUS meetup.
- BossKey, on 01/15/2009, -2/+6Just a couple years ago I would have thought that was a headline about the NBA.
- magus_melchior, on 01/16/2009, -0/+31. He did say at the outset that he would encourage dissenting opinions in his Cabinet.
2. Regardless of their disagreements on Iran and elsewhere, they are not that far apart, even in foreign policy. You can't say that they are polar opposites from one quote alone. - jayzDigga, on 01/17/2009, -0/+2@nbilsavage I assume FACT is some acronym since you capitalized it.
@ironhide But they must have been on the take when they ruled that Bush won the election? - jayzDigga, on 01/17/2009, -0/+2yawwwwwwwwwwn.
- VitriolAndAngst, on 01/16/2009, -0/+2The President and "friends" like Happy Lobbyists, can decide if someone gets a Winnebago.
And, if you were protesting the attempted recount in Florida in 2000, you just might have gotten appointed to the Supreme Court.
What alternative reality have you been hiding in the past 8 years if you think NeoCon's priorities haven't been causing the supreme court to side with Business "rights"? - Novusuna, on 01/16/2009, -1/+3You knew you'd be dugg down when you posted this. Why did you even bother?
- Novusuna, on 01/16/2009, -1/+3Do you even know what Marxism is? Because your comments seem to indicate that you don't.
- dofe, on 01/15/2009, -1/+3Not sure what law school you went to supercandy, but eminent domain has long been a part of government power. The founding fathers never questioned this, although they did add the 5th AMD's Takings Clause to ensure that property owners who were subject to condemnation would be fairly compensated (in response to to the English practice of forfeiture, where government could take your property w/o compensation).
The catch is that the taking is grounded on "public use" per the language of the 5th Amendment. - inactive, on 01/15/2009, -3/+4Not like the power he has over diggers.
-
Show 51 - 83 of 83 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is