Famous Court Cases

Rock the vote asked:


The Shocking True Story That Could
“Topple” Hillary Clinton and
SAVE America From More Clinton Corruption!

Hillary Clinton with the man who was
her single largest donor —
and is now her most feared enemy.

Hillary Clinton.

Like her husband, a proven liar.

Caught in one shameless lie after another.

Sniper fire? Yeah, right.

But did you know that one of the biggest lies Hillary has ever told…

Could Land Her In PRISON?

It’s true.

A California court case is underway right now… involving Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, and a host of famous Hollywood stars and well-known “Clintonista” Democrats.

The case contends that a private fundraising event for Hillary’s original senate campaign in 2000 turned into the largest case of election finance fraud in U.S. history.

In fact, Bill and Hillary are being sued for fraud by the Hollywood mogul who produced the event. It was the biggest party ever thrown for a President… while simultaneously being a million-dollar fundraiser for Hillary’s senate campaign.

But laws were broken. False FEC reports were filed. Cover-ups ensued. Even Hillary’s finance director was indicted and tried in federal court for breaking the law.

And now, the man who produced the event… the man who was Hillary Clinton’s single largest donor… has become her most feared enemy.

He has the “dirt” on Hillary Clinton — caught on home videos that can’t be dismissed or denied.

And he’s making them public — available to anyone with a DVD player.

At last, Hillary’s lies and deceits will be exposed for all the voters to see.

And not a moment too soon!

This is the story that will keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House . . . and even put an end to her entire political career.

Please take a moment right now to read the most fascinating exposé of Clinton corruption since… well, last week.

Actually, the most fascinating Clinton exposé ever.

Click here . . . and enjoy.
Check out mbush40’s link then!

mbush40: Thanks for the link.

notme asked:


The new US Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a key abortion case. Doe v Bolton was a companion case to the famous Roe v Wade that made abortion legal. Sandra Cano was the anonymous Jane Doe, and her case attempted to reverse her own victory in 1973.

That pretty much proves the new court believes a womans right to choose is the law of the land.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_CANO?SITE=PAYOK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

-

Anna P asked:


from Wiki (sorry to put the whole thing in but it’s interesting):
“Proxmire was famous for issuing his Golden Fleece Awards, which identifed wasteful government spending between 1975 and 1988. The first one was awarded in 1975 to the National Science Foundation for funding an $84,000 study on why people fall in love. Other Golden Fleece awards over the years were “awarded” to the Justice Department for conducting a study on why prisoners wanted to get out of jail, the National Institute of Mental Health to study a Peruvian brothel (”The researchers said they made repeated visits in the interests of accuracy,” reported the New York Times), and the Federal Aviation Administration, for studying “the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardesses, paying special attention to the ‘length of the buttocks.’”[1]

Proxmire’s critics claimed that some of his awards went to basic science projects that led to important breakthroughs, such as the Aspen Movie Map. He was heavily criticized for this by journalist Stewart Brand, and Proxmire later apologized for several of those, including SETI. As with pork barrel spending on defense projects, he successfully stopped numerous science and academic projects of dubious value.

One winner of the Golden Fleece Award, Ronald Hutchinson, was so outraged that he sued Proxmire for defamation in 1976. Proxmire claimed that his statements about Hutchinson’s research were protected by the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that that Clause does not immunize members of Congress from liability for defamatory statements made outside of formal congressional proceedings (Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 (1979)). The case was later settled out of court. (New York Times, Aug. 28, 1987)

From 1967 until 1986, Proxmire gave daily speeches noting the necessity of ratifying The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. After giving this speech every day that the Senate was in session for 20 years, resulting in 3,211 speeches, the convention was ratified by the U.S. Senate by a vote on 83–11 on February 11, 1986.[1]

He couldn’t get rid of earmarks and neither can John McCain. It has to pass Congress and the members would never approve that kind of bill. If McCain threatened to veto, he’d have to veto EVERY bill b/c earmarks are in EVERY bill.

A better solution would be to only allow amendments that are germane to the bill. Of course, that would have to pass.;..Congress! Never happen. About half of earmarks are needed, such as for military installations, public infrastructure, and the like. However, many are pet projects, such as the now-defunct Bridge to Nowhere.
ADD: The “pork” was by both Democrat and Republican–equal opportunity. And HE was Democrat.

Yes, I said that many are necessary and some others like the famous “sex lives of fruit flies” led to the saving of California fresh produce industries, which were in danger of succumbing to fruit fly infestations.

scorbore asked:


By this i mean way back in the early 1800s, the Supreme Court Judge John Marshall gave the power to declare whether or not a law is unconstitional or not to the Judicial branch in a very famous Supreme Court Case. Well, it still stands today, and was just recently used and stopped the wire-tapping because they declared it unconstitutional. But since the Judicial Branch did that, does that mean what it does unconstitutional, since it’s job is to punish criminals, and not create laws?(It created a law by saying this law was null, just like the emancipation proclamation towards slavery, a law to get rid of another law)
But then couldn’t you say that the Supreme court and Congress have a very close correlation to each other?