Judge rules Obamascare unconstitutional. - Page 3

sandie · #21 12-13-2010, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

I bet you are "reserving judgment" on President Obama's birth certificate also, aren't you? lol.

Not hardly. Sorry to disappoint you.

sandie · #22 12-13-2010, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

If there is ANY truth to this at all, the proper thing for him to have done would have been to pass this case off to another judge.

This is absolutely terrible!

You don't think the DOJ knew any of this? Either Holder is more incompetent then first imagined or there isn't anything that should have been done.

Jermyn Davidson · #23 12-13-2010, 10:09 PM

What the hades is he thinking-- did he think no one would see this as an OBVIOUS conflict of interest?

That is-- if the Huffington Post is true.

I'm not holding my breath on this one.

It just seems like it would go against ALL common sense (and probably jurisprudence) for him to rule on this case!

I'm thinking the Huff Post isn't telling the truth on this....

Twisp · #24 12-13-2010, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandie

Not hardly. Sorry to disappoint you.

You just seemed the type. Sorry about that.

Twisp · #25 12-13-2010, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandie

You don't think the DOJ knew any of this? Either Holder is more incompetent then first imagined or there isn't anything that should have been done.

Well, Holder is the one trying to come up with a way to prosecute an Australian citizen for doing what US journalists have been doing for years.

So yeah, I would say he is fairly incompetent.

Jermyn Davidson · #26 12-13-2010, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sandie

You don't think the DOJ knew any of this? Either Holder is more incompetent then first imagined or there isn't anything that should have been done.

Maybe he wanted to give this "judge" just enough rope to hang himself and credibility....

I just don't know what to think.

BARON if you see this, please let us know, unbiased please, if this is true how is this judge able to do this.

Is there anyone calling the judge on this other than the Huff Post?

Why didn't anyone else already sound the alarm in this situation?

Seems a bit odd....

Sam · #27 12-13-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

...
Either way, it is not a defeat. It will go to the Supreme Court, and they will rule it constitutional, just like Federal judges that do not own parts of companies campaigning against the HCR have done.

If it ever does go to the Supreme Court, they will probably do their little sidestep dance and send it back to a lower court or maybe they'll just refuse to hear the case at all

Jermyn Davidson · #28 12-13-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

Well, Holder is the one trying to come up with a way to prosecute an Australian citizen for doing what US journalists have been doing for years.

So yeah, I would say he is fairly incompetent.

Public opinion is so fickle.

So many folks were calling for this guy's head for "divulging" state secrets and putting the lives of so many in danger.

Now, he's almost a folk hero!

But I digress. This thread is not about Mr. Assange.

Twisp · #29 12-13-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

What the hades is he thinking-- did he think no one would see this as an OBVIOUS conflict of interest?

That is-- if the Huffington Post is true.

I'm not holding my breath on this one.

It just seems like it would go against ALL common sense (and probably jurisprudence) for him to rule on this case!

I'm thinking the Huff Post isn't telling the truth on this....

You don't have to go to Huffington Post to see this. Simply go to this link:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e

It is a " "a conservative, non-partisan American educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informa...d_by_WikiLeaks

Then click on the 2003 statement he provided. It opens a PDF. The company is on page 5.

Jermyn Davidson · #30 12-13-2010, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisp

You don't have to go toe Huffington Post to see this. Simply go to this link:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judge/hudson-henry-e

It is a " "a conservative, non-partisan American educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informa...d_by_WikiLeaks

Then click on the 2003 statement he provided. It opens a PDF. The company is on page 5.

2003 is 7 years ago.

Does he still have a personal stake in this company?