Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rheo

Coffee Shop

135 posts in this topic

gallery_3_6_6541.jpg

 

Join us daily to chat about news, post snippets, video's, what you heard on tv or at the grocery store.

Have a great day! wink.gif

 

Previous Thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libtalker Malloy: How Long Before Menstruating Women 'Can Be Shot' for Wearing Hoodies to Buy Tampons?

This could qualify as one of the craziest liberal rants ever broadcast on radio.

Scissors-32x32.png

 

 

MIKE MALLOY: What’s next? How long before there'll be a "Stand Your Pregnancy" law passed where any woman who starts menstruating can be shot dead because she wore a hoodie when she went out to buy a box of tampons? What? Wait. Everything’s getting confused. Everything’s getting all jumbled. No, no, no, no, no, you can’t do that. You can only shoot a 17-year old black boy. But if it's a white girl and she's menstruating - how do we know that she's not aborting?? SHOOT HER!

Scissors-32x32.png

----

I have no words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does Obama Know How the Supreme Court Voted?

 

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2012/04/03/does-obama-know-how-the-supreme-court-voted/

 

The Wink and The Nod

 

Posted by streiff (Diary)

 

Tuesday, April 3rd at 1:01PM EDT

140 Comments

 

The storm that erupted yesterday when Barack Obama woke up and discovered the Supreme Court of the United States was not only not elected but it could overturn “duly passed” laws, even those passed in the dead of the night by the barest of purchased majorities, has been more than adequately covered on these pages and others by actual lawyers and those who think they are.

 

I’m pretty sure Obama knows what Marbury v. Madison is, even though yesterday he gave a darned good impression of being a total goober in regards to our Constitution.

Scissors-32x32.png

When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices’ Conference. Two Conferences are held per week when Court is in session, on Wednesday and Friday afternoons. The Justices vote on cases heard on Mondays and Tuesdays of a given week at their Wednesday afternoon Conference. The Justices vote on cases heard on Wednesday at their Friday afternoon Conference. When Court is not in session, usually only a Friday Conference is held.

 

 

According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. The first order of business, typically, is to discuss the week’s petitions for certiorari, i.e., deciding which cases to accept or reject.

 

After the petitions for certiorari are dealt with, the Justices begin to discuss the cases that were heard since their last Conference. According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years.

 

When each Justice is finished speaking, the Chief Justice casts the first vote, and then each Justice in descending order of seniority does likewise until the most junior justice casts the last vote. After the votes have been tallied, the Chief Justice, or the most senior Justice in the majority if the Chief Justice is in the dissent, assigns a Justice in the majority to write the opinion of the Court. The most senior justice in the dissent can assign a dissenting Justice to write the dissenting opinion.Scissors-32x32.png

The first question is how, if there are no clerks, secretaries, etc., in the conference how would have the president found out about the decision… and I think the actual vote? Paradoxically, if there is a leak it is much easier to identify the source than if there were assorted support staff in the room. While support staff would have been the likely suspects they actually have much to lose and little to gain from leaking. If found out, they will lose their job. If not found out their reward will be minor. No fame. No fortune. Just the day-in-day-out knowledge that the person they leaked the information to controls their future. The people who can leak without fear are the justices themselves. If one did leak they are in no danger of losing their job and while some of their colleagues might be miffed they would, if exposed, be the toast of the town in Manhattan and Los Angeles.

 

(GASP… did you just insinuate a Supreme Court justice might breach the holiest of holies? Remember, my friends, we’re dealing with Democrats here.)

 

If a leak occurred after Friday’s conference, it is very easy to figure out the single justice with the requisite means, motive, and opportunity.

Scissors-32x32.png

 

Really good post & great comments.........

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rheo

 

From your post above:

 

I have no words.

 

Disgusting, dis-oriented & demented, Democrat come to mind......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the court will have a response to the letter? I guess it is best they just let the matter die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/


The Jawa Report
April 05, 2012
They Don't Speak For Us

Republican Party Chair: “War on Women” Talk Completely Bogus
n a taped interview that will air this weekend on Bloomberg News, the chairman of the Republican Party is repudiating the Obama administration and top Democrats who claim there is a “war on women” because Republicans are pushing a bill that would stop the Obama HHS mandate.
The mandate, which requires religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions for their employees, has drawn strong opposition from pro-life groups because of its pro-abortion and anti-conscience problems. That opposition has led to a backlash from Democrats and pro-abortion groups claiming conservatives and pro-life advocates are engaging in a “war on women.”[More..]
Meanwhile, a conservative women’s group, Smart Girl Politics Action, has launched “They Don’t Speak for Us,” a new video asking women to put the conversation back on real issues important to women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=E9TTNXGv4Gcwomen.



h/t @StevenErtelt
Liberal bitches definitely don't speak for me! LMFAO.gif
By Stable Hand at 11:49 AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is the problem!!! (". . . in a taped interview that will air this weekend on Bloomberg News. . . ") Who in the hell watches "Bloomberg News" anyway?

 

Surely not "the masses"!

Surely not liberals!

Surely not most right wingers!

 

So...who cares what the "chairman of the rino party" has to say???

 

Few...if any.

 

And like the rino party, the message remains unheard and the party edges still closer to irrelevance.

 

Oh...and by the way: did we all take into account the strident, forceful, and leader-like statement repudiating this nonsense about a "war on women" made the the head of the House rinos??

 

We didn't??

 

Perhaps that's because like the failure he is, bohn-your didn't make one.

 

Another opportunity missed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden explains it all! huh.png

 

 

I could only get through the first minute.rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow -- that could make cocktail parties/receptions a whole lot more interesting!

 

Interesting? Lets bear in mind that there are people who should always be clothed....otherwise the human species would surly become extinct.ohmy.png

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe Biden explains it all! huh.png

 

 

I could only get through the first minute.rolleyes.gif

 

God Bless Slo Joe! He's the gift that keeps on giving. OTOH he is one heart beat away from the Presidency....and yes that should scare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posts #21 and #22 are perfect examples of why Obama will not see a second term.

 

Can you imagine the UN trying anything if Bolton was still the ambassador? We have a weak ambassador and a weak administration not demanding anything of her, Susan Rice.

 

I saw another article somewhere today that seemed to be promoting violence this spring and summer by the OWS. I keep thinking about Chicago from years ago. The riots at the Democrat convention. 1969?? Yeah, we need that again. Bring it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0