Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-08-2010, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954

Advertisements

Quote:
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Case Challenging Hillary Clinton's Eligibility As Secretary Of State

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it won't hear arguments that Hillary Rodham Clinton is ineligible to be secretary of state because of an obscure rule about pay increases.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, without ruling on the underlying issue.

Judicial Watch's lawsuit had been thrown out by the lower courts without a "final judgment, decree or order upon the validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the Secretary of State," the high court said. "... The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
More at the link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2010, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,388,397 times
Reputation: 8672
The suit is based on a largely overlooked section of the Constitution on compensation for public officials, the emoluments clause. The clause says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term

Really, aren't there bigger things for the SCOTUS to worry about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2010, 07:13 PM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,447,937 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The suit is based on a largely overlooked section of the Constitution on compensation for public officials, the emoluments clause. The clause says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term

Really, aren't there bigger things for the SCOTUS to worry about?
Seeing as how the motives to eject Clinton were largely political, the Supreme Court was wise not to hear the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2010, 07:29 PM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
The suit is based on a largely overlooked section of the Constitution on compensation for public officials, the emoluments clause. The clause says no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term

Really, aren't there bigger things for the SCOTUS to worry about?
They can't handle big things.

Where's my 9th Amendment right to sell marijuana?

Where are war powers without congressional declaration?

Why hasn't the Federal Reserve Act been ruled void?

Why does my state make things other than gold and silver coin payment for debt?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2010, 07:34 PM
 
Location: La lune et les étoiles
18,258 posts, read 22,532,193 times
Reputation: 19593
When will the Republicans STOP wasting tax payers money on such frivilousness. Isn't that what they "profess" as their agenda?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 12:54 AM
 
19,226 posts, read 15,321,408 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
When will the Republicans STOP wasting tax payers money on such frivilousness. Isn't that what they "profess" as their agenda?
You saying Hillary's job as Secretary of State is a mere blow job?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 01:09 AM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,447,937 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
You saying Hillary's job as Secretary of State is a mere blow job?

OK even I had to crack a smile at this one
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 07:51 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,130,599 times
Reputation: 3241
Judicial Watch...so kooky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Over There
5,094 posts, read 5,440,437 times
Reputation: 1208
Ugh!!! I am a conservative and even I have to shake my head at this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

¬© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top