(04-19-2010 11:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-19-2010 10:47 AM)RobertN Wrote:  OFF TOPIC: Speaking of screwing. THat Redskins chick is hot. :)

You do know she's not real, right? Fake? Guess that's your kind of woman though.

Robert's only interaction with women is Hentai.

(04-18-2010 11:13 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 08:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't believe that is exactly what Thomas was referring to, but others are free to disagree.

Maybe this will make it clearer for you.

Quote:Mario Apuzzo comments on the Thomas statement:

From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as President even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States.

I changed the bolding... it's one man's opinion.

Thomas was speaking to someone who was "asking" the court if a Puerto Rican can run for President. The "other option" he is offering is quite obvious... that he CAN (meaning it is an option) be on the Supreme Court.

I get his point and I get his interpretation. I'm just not convinced that Thomas was saying anything more than "that is a touchy subject"... which it is. His (Obama's) eligibility would be established by proper documentation if he were born in Hawaii as is claimed. It isn't the same thing as Puerto Rico which isn't a state.

(04-19-2010 04:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 11:13 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(04-18-2010 08:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't believe that is exactly what Thomas was referring to, but others are free to disagree.

Maybe this will make it clearer for you.

Quote:Mario Apuzzo comments on the Thomas statement:

From Justice Thomas’ first mentioning that one does not have to be born in the United States to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, it appears that Justice Thomas is telling Congress that the Court is angry with Congress for allowing Obama to sit as President even though there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he was born in the United States.

I changed the bolding... it's one man's opinion.

Thomas was speaking to someone who was "asking" the court if a Puerto Rican can run for President. The "other option" he is offering is quite obvious... that he CAN (meaning it is an option) be on the Supreme Court.

I get his point and I get his interpretation. I'm just not convinced that Thomas was saying anything more than "that is a touchy subject"... which it is. His (Obama's) eligibility would be established by proper documentation if he were born in Hawaii as is claimed. It isn't the same thing as Puerto Rico which isn't a state.

When he says "We're evading that one", that does not in any way shape of form affirm that a Hawaiian birth makes him eligible. It's meaning is that reasonable doubt exists as to whether he was born in the United States.

If your not convinced, what other explanation or meaning for his words "We're evading that one".

(04-19-2010 05:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  When he says "We're evading that one", that does not in any way shape of form affirm that a Hawaiian birth makes him eligible. It's meaning is that reasonable doubt exists as to whether he was born in the United States.

If your not convinced, what other explanation or meaning for his words "We're evading that one".

He's not talking about Hawaii. He's talking about Puerto Rico. He's not talking about Obama, but Serrano. He says they're evading the question as to whether or not birth in a territory that is not now a state makes one eligible... He's evading that question...

I'm sorry SOAF. I don't like Obama's policies either... but IF he was born in Hawaii to a (iirc) 18yr old mother and she didn't renounce his citizenship... then he's safe. Hawaii isn't Puerto Rico. The rules would be different, so the comment is unrelated. Barry Goldwater was born in AZ before it was a state. I suspect it has happened before.

(04-19-2010 06:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2010 05:48 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  When he says "We're evading that one", that does not in any way shape of form affirm that a Hawaiian birth makes him eligible. It's meaning is that reasonable doubt exists as to whether he was born in the United States.

If your not convinced, what other explanation or meaning for his words "We're evading that one".

He's not talking about Hawaii. He's talking about Puerto Rico. He's not talking about Obama, but Serrano. He says they're evading the question as to whether or not birth in a territory that is not now a state makes one eligible... He's evading that question...

I'm sorry SOAF. I don't like Obama's policies either... but IF he was born in Hawaii to a (iirc) 18yr old mother and she didn't renounce his citizenship... then he's safe. Hawaii isn't Puerto Rico. The rules would be different, so the comment is unrelated. Barry Goldwater was born in AZ before it was a state. I suspect it has happened before.

"He's" not evading anything.... The word he used was "We're". Meaning the entire SCOTUS. How could you not get that. Thomas is not a stupid man, he is well aware of the situation of eligibility.

I said they're...

I just don't get the point you obviously think you're making. Even if I change I to we, all he's "admitting" is that its a touchy subject filled with political undertones. I don't think its a secret that the SCOTUS would prefer to NOT have to decide Obama's eligibility.

Clarence Thomas IS a smart man. There's no way he has an opinion on Obama's eligibility. No evidence or legal question is yet before him.

(04-19-2010 09:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I said they're...

I just don't get the point you obviously think you're making. Even if I change I to we, all he's "admitting" is that its a touchy subject filled with political undertones. I don't think its a secret that the SCOTUS would prefer to NOT have to decide Obama's eligibility.

Clarence Thomas IS a smart man. There's no way he has an opinion on Obama's eligibility. No evidence or legal question is yet before him.

He is a little slow. He thinks this is about Obama(he is obsessed with Obama). This is the reason it was posted in the first place. As for your comment about him having no opinion on Obama's eligibility, I am pretty sure he does. What that opinion is we don't know but I would bet he has thought about it though.

He is stating a fact, "We're evading that one," meaning the SCOTUS is evading the question of eligibility, and not just Obama's. No question. Not an opinion.

So you said

Hambone10 Wrote:I don't believe that is exactly what Thomas was referring to, but others are free to disagree.

I still haven't a foggy idea what else Thomas could be referring to. We may even be in agreement.

(04-19-2010 10:13 PM)RobertN Wrote:  As for your comment about him having no opinion on Obama's eligibility, I am pretty sure he does. What that opinion is we don't know but I would bet he has thought about it though.

Of course... but what YOU and I might consider an opinion, and what a SC justice considers an opinion isn't the same thing. He doesn't have a LEGAL opinion because he hasn't been presented with a question or evidence. I'm sure he has a generic opinion, but until presented with a case, that is moot.

(04-19-2010 11:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  He is stating a fact, "We're evading that one," meaning the SCOTUS is evading the question of eligibility, and not just Obama's. No question. Not an opinion.

So you said

Hambone10 Wrote:I don't believe that is exactly what Thomas was referring to, but others are free to disagree.

I still haven't a foggy idea what else Thomas could be referring to. We may even be in agreement.

He was responding to a question of eligibility for a Puerto Rican to run for President. A case on that is apparently before the SCOTUS because he said "I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States" in a discussion about diversity on the court.

To my reading, Thomas said that is another question... in other words, it is unrelated to diversity on the court, which it is. I'd accept that he may have been wanting to express that the court would prefer to avoid a highly contentious issue like Serrano's, or vicariously, Obama's eligibility... but I think anything beyond that (the part about "division") is speculation.

The division is just as likely a "we want to be involved", versus "we don't" which I think they probably are in general... as it is, we have a difference of opinion on the outcome which is what is implied.

No big deal...

(04-20-2010 02:33 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-19-2010 10:13 PM)RobertN Wrote:  As for your comment about him having no opinion on Obama's eligibility, I am pretty sure he does. What that opinion is we don't know but I would bet he has thought about it though.

Of course... but what YOU and I might consider an opinion, and what a SC justice considers an opinion isn't the same thing. He doesn't have a LEGAL opinion because he hasn't been presented with a question or evidence. I'm sure he has a generic opinion, but until presented with a case, that is moot.

(04-19-2010 11:07 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  He is stating a fact, "We're evading that one," meaning the SCOTUS is evading the question of eligibility, and not just Obama's. No question. Not an opinion.

So you said

Hambone10 Wrote:I don't believe that is exactly what Thomas was referring to, but others are free to disagree.

I still haven't a foggy idea what else Thomas could be referring to. We may even be in agreement.

He was responding to a question of eligibility for a Puerto Rican to run for President. A case on that is apparently before the SCOTUS because he said "I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States" in a discussion about diversity on the court.

To my reading, Thomas said that is another question... in other words, it is unrelated to diversity on the court, which it is. I'd accept that he may have been wanting to express that the court would prefer to avoid a highly contentious issue like Serrano's, or vicariously, Obama's eligibility... but I think anything beyond that (the part about "division") is speculation.

The division is just as likely a "we want to be involved", versus "we don't" which I think they probably are in general... as it is, we have a difference of opinion on the outcome which is what is implied.

No big deal...

Quote:A case on that is apparently before the SCOTUS

That is soooooo off the wall. How did you read that into it. You really had to stretch on that one.

From the article

"I'm still waiting for the [court decision] on whether or not a Puerto Rican can run for president of the United States," said Serrano, who was born in the island territory

not A court decision, but THE court decision... which implies there is a case before the court. Certainly he could have chosen the wrong word or it could have been reported wrong, but it is a proper reading of the words. I'm waiting for THE decision.