All Posts (29717)
Sort by
What is wrong with Americans,
No one that I talk to actually has any idea what in the world is going on in our country. They talk about the Bush tax cuts for being for the rich, But they do not take the time to read or understand what the tax cuts do. They think that Arizona is a racist state for wanting to control imigration, But do they read or understand what is going on.....NO I lived in Phoenix and I can tell you they have a major problem with illegals and it is just not hispanics it is also asians they have a large illegal asian populaton. People say oh but they have been here awhile let thm stay. BullSh-T. My question is this if you are caught in a forein country without document what will happen to you. Now the biggest problem we have in this country is the media and their liberal views poisioning the minds of desent people. They are like a rancher bringing feed to the trough and watch all the people line up just like cattle. We have been conditioned for the herd mentality we let them rope us off and make us move thru a maze at the bank, movie theater. I never thought I would have to be a rat in a maze to buy popcorn. We need some honest people who are not afraid to speak not afraid to take on the fat cat politicians who only care about what they can get from special interest groups..Now are you a person with a mind capible of inteligent thought or are you cattle..Think about it.
Just remember :
Don't become a Democrat
Don't become a Republican
Just Become Pissed and lets take our Country Back
Dream Act? How about Nightmare Scenario?
It seems funny, well odd anyway, that nobody seems to recall that there was a huge, and quite controversial at the time, Immigration Reform in 1986. The Undocumented Foreign Nationals ( I REFUSE TO REFER TO THEM AS IMMIGRANTS IN ANY MANNER WHENEVER AVOIDABLE ) who were then illegally living and working inside the United States were granted amnesty if they met certain, very minimal prerequisites.
In return, there was to be a significant strengthening of our border controls and a concerted effort to prevent new Undocumented Foreign Nationals from sneaking into our Country illegally or being employable, or able to reside here comfortably if they were to do so.
Well, the Undocumented Foreign Nationals, about three or four Million of them when there were only supposed to be about two Million, got their U.S. Citizenship, but nothing much seems to have ever been done to stem the cause of the problem.
Now the claim is that there are another twelve to twenty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals that have since managed to invade our Nation. If that is comparable to the 1986 estimate, could we actually be looking at more like
twenty to thirty Million Undocumented Foreign Nationals living and working illegally inside the United States, OR MORE?
This Dream Act is not a dream but much more like a Nightmare.
Let us insist that the Law(makers?) who want this “DREAM Act” legislation first spend the next twenty or thirty years living up to the enforcement portion of the bargain that was agreed to in 1986.
The Undocumented Foreign Nationals who were living and working illegally within the United States have already gotten their part of the comprehensive reform, Amnesty in 1986.
Now, it is time for the Citizens of The United States to be provided with the other half of the bargain, Enforcement of our Immigration Laws and expulsion of the Undocumented Foreign INVADERS.
We have an unemployment problem here in the United States. There are about 15 Million U.S. Citizens who want, but cannot find, work. What would happen if the Undocumented Foreign Nationals now living and working illegally inside the United States were to suddenly become unemployable? Would that not open up several million jobs for U.S. Citizens who want and DESERVE them?
What would that do for our economy? Several million U.S. Citizens working and paying taxes instead of living on taxpayer provided funds. Several million Undocumented Foreign Nationals no longer having access to those same taxpayer provided funds. Would that not put a major dent in the Federal Deficit? Maybe even help to reduce the National DEBT?
Quisling was only one lawmaker in the 1930's in Holland. Look what he did. How many Quislings do we now have in similar positions here in the United States?
When it comes to choice, the path of least resistance, the choice most often made can lead to dire consequences. That’s where America is now. Far more is being taken out of America’s economy than is being put in, and more on the way, with Senator Reid’s dream of amnesty, the most important thing of all at this crucial time to Senator Reid and Democrats. Clearly, we’re at a point when hard choices must be made. You will get nothing from Democrats but the same failed answers.
What are Democrats leading us to? Today’s blog comes to mind after viewing Herman Wouk’s War and Remembrance, a disc set first broadcast on TV. This is a good time to view this great dramatization of the first global war, World War II, which was brought about by the worst monster in human history, Adolph Hitler. I was there to witness what he caused, one of the ten percent of World War II veterans still alive. There is no reason to think Germany’s fate can’t be reenacted in America. How it happened is something we all need to think about long and hard. Thanks to Democrats, we are heading in Germany’s direction prior to World War II, to financial collapse. When the German people were looking for whom to blame, Hitler blamed Jews. Jews owned most of Germany’s industry. Hitler was wrong. Actually, according to economist Milton Friedman, it was none other than our Democrats that led the world to Depression and Germany’s financial collapse.
Whatever it takes, we must submit to a balanced budget. Whatever it takes, we must return to the constitutional principles that made America great; that is, personal responsibility and self-reliance, which is a do-it-yourself thing. Never depend on government. It’s the kiss of death.
Big government, the responsibility of Democrats, is making the American people dependent on government. Redistribution of the wealth is responsible for a weak economy, a weak economy responsible for more government dependency. Democrats engaged in class warfare are responsible for America being as divided as during the Civil War. The level of anger is building. When emotions are high, anything can happen.
To listen to the politicians bickering; they give us no answer at all, the American people are vulnerable to any answer, rest assured, with some to blame. That’s always part of it. Is it going to be greedy capitalists or government dependents to blame? Given the level of anger, and in War and Remembrance I saw men, women, and children being stripped naked, beaten and kicked on their way to their slaughter in vivid and ghastly detail, does it boil down to who America’s sheep are going to be? Already you are being groped, for the good of all. Next will it be stripped, kicked and beaten to your demise? While Jews were being machine gunned by the thousands, a German audience, amused at what was taking place, watched it happen. Who was to blame? Having lived and learned, do you blame Jews for fighting for their right to exist. What do Democrats and Obama want? Obama doesn’t favor Jews. He apologizes for America. I’ve yet to hear him say exactly what he wants to make America. Americans must demand their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or lose all that those who came before fought to gain.
It’s unbelievable how humans can be manipulated. Look at Democrats. How can you know that it will not be you who is stripped, kicked and beaten to your slaughter, while others watch in amusement, of course for the good of all? Yep, the end result justifies the means—and the whole process begins again. Look at what Democrats have already done to your rights, of course for the good of all. How much do Democrats care about your rights, poking around your groin for no cause? It’s an outrage! The poverty stricken begging Obama to hold the course, Democrats are slow learners. Why are so many impoverished? They depend on government and they could care less about whose money they take. They take no personal responsibility. It is simply help me through the night. Democrats have Nazi mentality. I can envision Democrats sending sheep to their slaughter. Power and control is the name of their game. The time for soft talk is over. Look at history. Democrats could care less about whose life they take. Only you can stop this vicious cycle. Watch Democrats run for the hills when you decide you are not going to take it anymore. Watch Republicans toe the mark.
Supremes challenged to put Constitution above Twitter
Case questioning eligibility says facts don't support Obama story
Posted: November 26, 2010
11:45 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Constitution will trump Twitter on issues of national importance, including the eligibility of a president, which could determine the very future of the American form of government.
The request is being made in a petition for writ of certiori, or a request for the Supreme Court to review the decision of a lower appellate court, in a case brought on behalf of Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer.
He is among the many who have brought court challenges to Obama's tenure in the Oval Office based on doubts about whether Obama qualifies for the position under the U.S. Constitution's demand that presidents be a "natural born citizen," a qualification not imposed on many other federal officers.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bri...
The pleadings submitted to the court, compiled by longtime attorney John D. Hemenway, cite the incredible importance of the claims that Obama, in fact, failed to qualify for the office.
"If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question," it continued.
The case made headlines at the district court level because of the ruling from District Judge James Robertson of Washington.
 Judge James Robertson |
In refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible, Robertson wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
Besides the sarcasm involved, the pleading states, the very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored.
The pleading outlines that information, which challenges Obama's claim to eligibility and his campaign's citation of a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth from the state of Hawaii, a document also made available to those not necessarily born in the state, as proof of Obama's eligibility.
It suggests there are "sufficient allegations" that Obama was not born inside the United States, and outlines the law and regulations in force at the time of Obama's birth, in 1961.
"At the time of the birth of the respondent Obama in 1961 as alleged, Congress had … the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952. Under the applicable provision of that act … for the respondent Obama to have been a naturalized citizen of the United States at birth, were he born of one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent, as he has alleged throughout his political career he was, his mother would have had to have been continuously resident in the United States for a period of 10 years preceding the date of his birth and, most importantly, she would have had to have resided continuously for five years preceding his birth in the United State after she had turned 14 years old. Since she was only 18 when Obama was born, this condition was clearly not fulfilled," the arguments said.
It also raised the suggestion that there are sound arguments to the effect that a "natural born citizen" is someone born to two citizen parents, and Obama himself has documented that his father never was a citizen of the U.S.
The fact that the evidence never was reviewed and the judge based a "biased" decision on "a completely extrajudicial factor" [twittering], prevented Hollister from having the constitutional rule of law applied, the petition states. .
"A further example of this bias based on extrajudicial factors by the district court was its observation that a lawyer associated with the initiation of petitioner Hollister's case, a prominent Democrat in Pennsylvania who backed Hillary Clinton in her successful primary there against respondent Obama, though never admitted in the case, was 'probably' the 'real plaintiff' in the case and that he and another lawyer who signed filings but was also never admitted … were 'agents provocateur' whose efforts to raise the issue of the respondent Obama's constitutional eligibility in lawsuits were a crusade in which the petitioner Hollister was a dupe," the petition says.
The questions suggested by the petition are weighty:
- "Did the district court examine the complaint, as required by the decisions of this and every other federal court, to see if it alleged facts to support its claims?"
- "By refusing to consider the issue of defendant Obama not being a 'natural born citizen' as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, did the district court violate its obligations to consider the issues raised by the complaint?"
- "In … relying on extrajudicial criteria such as an assertion that 'the issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency' combined with an attack on petitioner … did the district court not engage in such obvious political bias and upon extrajudicial factors as to render its opinion void?"
- "Did the … bias engaged in lead to a decision which ignored the law as set out above and as a result place the respondent-defendant Obama above that law and the rule of law in this country generally and threaten the constitutional basis and very existence of our rule of law?"
- "Did the courts below not completely ignore the decisions of this court and the clear language of Rule 15 of the federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning amendments so as to compound its biased elevation of the defendant Obama above the rule of constitutional law?"
While the district judge dismissed the case because it had been "twittered," the appeals court simply adopted his reasoning, but wouldn't even allow its opinion affirming the decision to be published, the petition explains.
Hollister's concern rests with the fact that as a retired Air Force officer in the Individual Ready Reserve, it is possible that he at some point could be subject to Obama's orders.
"If Congress called up the Air Force Individual Ready Reserve the respondent Obama would have to give the order … If, as it appears, those orders would not be lawful, Col. Hollister would be bound … to question them and look to the respondent [Vice President Joe] Biden as constitutionally next in succession for lawful orders," the pleading said.
This case doesn't have the "standing" dispute that has brought failure to so many other challenges to Obama's eligibility, the pleading explains, because Robertson "found that it had jurisdiction of the case, and therefore that petitioner Hollister had standing."
Courts in other case have ruled that the plaintiffs suffered no injury themselves that was not general to the population, so they weren't allowed to sue. However, because of Robertson's handling of the case, standing here has been established, the pleading states, allowing the appeal actually to argue the merits of the case, and note how Supreme Court precedents have been contradicted in the handling of the challenge to Obama.
Officials told WND that this case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to re-establish that its precedents are binding.
The district judge also remarked "sarcastically" that there may be as many as a "couple of dozen" people concerned about the dispute. In fact, polls done by CNN and others indicate almost 6 in 10 in American don't believe Obama's birth narrative, which would give those doubting the president a total in the range of 180 million or more.
"In fact, reliable polls have shown the number of such people to be in the tens of millions and growing," the pleading explains.
"The combination of bias and ridicule of a person like the plaintiff wanting his concerns resolved by a court as being, essentially, an 'unthinkable' notion, is an expressed denial of a citizen's right to access to the courts," the case pleading continues.
The document also explains that both Robertson and Obama have "held management positions on boards of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law, and thus are acquainted with each other. There is every appearance of bias here," it said.
John Eidsmoe, an expert on the U.S. Constitution now working with the Foundation on Moral Law, has told WND a demand for verification of Obama's eligibility appears to be legitimate.
Eidsmoe said it's clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that "he does not want the public to know."
WND reported just days ago on another case, Kerchner v. Obama, that was before the Supreme Court with a request for review, on the same subject.
The case focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.
"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."
WND has reported on dozens of legal and other challenges to Obama's eligibility. Some suggest he was not born in Hawaii has he claims; others say his birth location makes no difference because a "natural born citizen" was understand at the time to be a child of two citizen parents, and Obama's father was subject to the British crown when Barack Obama was born.
Religion is good, religion is a sensitive topic, religion has no place in politics or contreversy. Their are about 21 different major religions so according to the "hard core beleivers" 20 of the religions are wrong. Beleive in whatever you wish, whatever makes you sleep good at night. One should not receive any special privledges for their religion nor should they be aloud to have holy wars. Most of our founding fathers were deist as I am. If you are not aware what that is, look it up. It is the only religion that makes sense. It is peaceful and If the deist community would grow the world would be a much more peaceful place.
When did we start allowing people to run over us? Did it start when a woman was able to sue McDonalds for spilling her hot coffee on her self or what? People are scared to let someone know when they are wrong. America babies everyone. The truth is sugardaddy is out of money and it's time to use a stiff arm. Nobody wants to say that the 22 year old single mom with four kids shouldn't recieve welfare, but at what point do we have to set boundries? Single teenage moms benefit from over half of all medacaid. It's time to stop being friendly and tell people they are F'd up. Maybe if these people had role models in their life growing up they wouldn't be this way. At some point we have to end the madness, and we can't do that by rewarded stupid people with a check every month. Who cares if gays are upset and want to be treated fairly? They are wrong and sorry but we have more important things to worry about than your feelings. If someone is 50 years old and have been living off the government for years and years (we all know at least one) they need to be cut off. Maybe they are better off dead, they are a burden to society. These political games going on in Washington should be illigal and they should be punished for acting childish. The fact that half of the decisions made are revolved around elections it outrageous. The two party system needs to be abolished for good. George Washington tried to warn us of political parties and we did not listen.
Every four years since I can remember ( the past 35 years ) I've woken up to the same song playing on the political radio. We have these people running for the highest office our country has to offer, President of the United States of America. A number of people get in the race for this prestigous office with hopes of becoming their parties nominee and ultimately President. During all of the candidates campaigns over the years I've heard these same Top five oldies but goodies played over and over and over again. We must fund education in this country / We must reform and save Social Security / We must lower taxes for the average American / We must reform medicaid / We have to reduce the deficit for this country to prosper. So let's review for a moment. We have two parties singing the same songs leading up to Ground Hog day which lasts for months and months and months. Finally when the dust settles and Ground Hog day arrives we pick the person who sang those top 5 songs the best. Hmmm, what's wrong with this picture? I think the same things will be the platforms for all parties yet again. Any ideas to stop the 40 year insanity ? You would think by now we wouldn't have any issues on S.S , Education, Taxes, Medicare, Deficits etc... Because all who were previously elected by us over the past 40 years have accomplished what they ran on. Who's fooling who ?
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today after the Senate passed a flawed food safety bill and rejected his alternative plan.
“The bill the Senate passed today will grow the government, increase food prices, and drive small producers out of business without making our food any safer. America has the safest food supply in the world – and it has been getting safer – because the free market and consumers have held bad actors accountable. This bill destroys that balance and replaces common sense with the heavy hand of government,” Dr. Coburn said.
The Coburn substitute would have required better coordination among agencies like the FDA and USDA and helped implement better information technology systems. The Coburn substitute also would have leveraged the free market by utilizing private inspections, which would have allowed the FDA to focus on bad actors.
“Instead of addressing the problems that do exist and have contributed to food scares, such as a lack of coordination between agencies, Congress decided to spend billions of dollars, add 250 pages of new regulations, and give government new powers that will lead to unnecessary and costly food recalls. The recent salmonella outbreak did not occur because we lacked this bill. That scare occurred because regulations that were already on the books were not implemented,” Dr. Coburn said.
“This bill is a typical Washington response to a perceived crisis. In every area of government we see diminishing returns when government spends billions without any hope of improved outcomes. Millions of Americans are fed up with ‘security theater’ at the Department of Homeland Security and are about to witness an outbreak of ‘food-safety theater’ from the FDA. In the coming months and years consumers will see that more government does not mean safer food,” Dr. Coburn said.
###
ALL of the suggestions for reform involve the taxpayer digging deeper to pay for the spending. Only in one(or two) cases do they get it right and advocate reducing the size and cost of government.
The New Republicans advocate rolling back government spending to the levels of 2008. 2008? GIVE ME A BREAK! For starters, let's roll back every executive departments budget by 10%, right now. Then for the next five years, reduce their budgets by 2% per year. That gives us a 20% reduction in SPENDING in the next five years.
Next, let's insist that congress place a moritorium on automatic pay raises for themselves and all government employees raises for that same five year period. That will save another bundle.
Next, make the so-called Bush tax cuts permanent. More money in the taxpayers hands equals more revenue for the big spenders.
Reduce our energy costs by dropping the federal tax on fuels. Let the states take care of the highways and decide on the appropriate tax level for maintenance.
And finally, let's do away with government slush funds and off-budget sources of income at all levels of government. Government has no business running a surplus, hidden or otherwise. A surplus indicates that they raped the taxpayer for more than needed to operate the government. Any surplus should be required to be refunded to the taxpayers the next tax cycle. Notice I said "taxpayers". There should be no refund to those who pay no taxes. They get a good handout via the negative income tax boondoggle. Also kill the totalization agreement with Mexico. It irks me that Mexicans in Mexico can draw against the Social Security account that is nearly or actually bankrupt. Talk about stupid.
The problem IS NOT lack of funding. It is SPENDING MORE THAN YOU MAKE! We taxpayers understand the principle very well. It is far past time for our so-called leaders to get the message.
UPDATE:
BORN IN THE USA?
Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again
Lawyer: Decision 'doesn't mean that this issue goes away'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: November 29, 2010
9:51 pm Eastern
By Brian Fitzpatrick
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it would not hear Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to serve in the Oval Office.
The case is the latest in a lengthy series of cases in which U.S courts have refused to hear any arguments about Mr. Obama's eligibility.
The court effectively killed the Kerchner case with one terse statement: "The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied."
"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."
"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly.
"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"
"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."
"Now it is far worse," Kerchner continued. "The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken."
Kerchner v. Obama argued that Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," which article II, section 1 of the constitution requires any U.S. president to be. According to Swiss political theorist Emer de Vattel, whose writings heavily influenced the founding fathers, an American "natural born citizen" must be the child of two parents who were both American citizens. Mr. Obama's father was a British subject, a Kenyan student living temporarily in the United States.
"A person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil," Apuzzo explained to CNN. "It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States."
"If they wanted to they could have taken this up," Apuzzo told WND. He surmised the court decided, "I don't want to rock the boat too much because that will make it worse, let me be nice and things will go away."
"None of this is moot. If he runs again in 2012, people will want to know" [whether Mr. Obama is a legitimate president], said Apuzzo. "The issue is not going away. … You're going to have a lot of states that are going to be on this, they will want to see that birth certificate."
Like previous cases challenging Obama's eligibility, Kerchner v. Obama foundered in lower courts on the question of "standing." Mr. Obama's attorneys have avoided addressing the merits of an eligibility case. Instead, they have repeatedly succeeded in persuading courts to dismiss cases because the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not prove they were directly harmed by Mr. Obama's occupation of the Oval Office.
Another case currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, Barnett v. Obama, may not be stopped by the standing problem, according to United States Justice Foundation Executive Director Gary Kreep. Kreep, author of the Western Center for Journalism amicus curiae brief cited above by the Supreme Court, represents two plaintiffs in the Barnett case.
Kreep explained that one of the plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Alan Keyes, was a presidential candidate in 2008.
"According to case law, candidates have standing to challenge the eligibility of other candidates," Kreep told WND. "The Department of Justice, which is handling Obama's defense, is not even addressing standing. They're saying it's a political question," and therefore shouldn't be decided by the courts."
Apuzzo and Kreep both suggested that Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor should have recused themselves from the Kerchner case.
"We've seen Justice Kagan recuse herself in various cases, and here's a case where she did not recuse herself, and also Justice Sotomayor, which struck me as really odd because they were appointed by President Obama," said Apuzzo.
"If he's not eligible to be president, he never was, and it could jeopardize their appointments," said Kreep. "An argument could have been made that they should have recused themselves."
"If either of them had anything to do with any of the eligibility decisions, they should have recused themselves," Kreep added. Kagan, as President Obama's Solicitor General, was "probably" involved in planning his legal strategy in earlier eligibility cases.
Apuzzo suggested Kagan's and Sotomayor's participation might have changed the outcome of the court's deliberations.
"We don't know what the vote was," Apuzzo pointed out. "If it was a dog of a case, you don't need Kagan's or Sotomayor's votes. Why did they leave this ethical cloud hanging in history? For what? For a dog of a case?"