|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
FlyingSquirrel (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:38 PM Original message |
Poll question: Would you like to see a Birther case accepted by the SCOTUS? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BlooInBloo (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:39 PM Response to Original message |
1. No. I'd like to see them decline to hear one. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Sanity Claws (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:41 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. That would be the better route |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
noel711 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:41 PM Response to Original message |
2. I thought the court already denied one birther claim... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ohio Joe (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:43 PM Response to Original message |
4. No... and it would shut no one up anyway |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
rurallib (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:44 PM Response to Original message |
5. to me taking an obviously faulty case would undermine the lower courts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jackpine Radical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:44 PM Response to Original message |
6. No. Accepting the case grants it a sort of legitimacy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NoPasaran (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:45 PM Response to Original message |
7. No |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
endarkenment (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:52 PM Response to Original message |
8. Nope. That would dignify their crap. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NYC_SKP (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Jul-16-09 02:55 PM Response to Original message |
9. I'd like to see a SC justice publicly LOL at the idea. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RobertSeattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-17-09 12:02 PM Response to Original message |
10. It's my understanding they already did - in 2008 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
RobertSeattle (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-17-09 12:04 PM Response to Original message |
11. They'll never shut up... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HopeOverFear (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Fri Jul-17-09 12:31 PM Response to Original message |
12. Sure, why the hell not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:47 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC