Can Someone please talk me down

[windy252]

I wish I had not looked at this, but my curiousity got the best of me. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7909879&mesg_id=7909879
After reading this, I am concerned that we're going to see another election invalidated by the SCOTUS. Could someone please convince me this is unlikely to swing to McCain? I already have a terrible problem with anxiety.

[Radical Activist]

1. They wouldn't do it.

Even the batshit crazy Justices know their limits. They know what would happen if they tried to stop Obama from becoming President. They know it would be the end of the Supreme Court's ability to adjudicate, if not the general collapse of the government. They wouldn't risk it.

[windy252]

2. Thank you

That helped a lot (not being sarcastic).

[Radical Activist]

3. Cool.

I had this same discussion with someone last week and that's the conclusion we came to.

[Montauk6]

13. I'm sure people thought similarly in 2000

(cue the cliched harps and vavy video)

Nah, the Supreme Court wouldn't stop a legitimate vote count... whaddaya nuts??? THE SUPREME COURT??? Come on, I know they have ideological leanings but they would NEVER step on the electoral process...

[cali]

4. This is nonsense and will in no way threaten Obama's being

sworn in as President on January 20. The SC will not grant cert. Obama was born in Hawaii. There is nothing to worry about here.

[No Elephants]

5. Did you read the posts on that thread? They give reasons why the Justices

will either dismiss this (perhaps because the plaintiff lacks standing) or find for Obama.

[windy252]

6. yes

but I had also read some of the counterarguments and that was what concerned me.

[cali]

7. the counterarguments are not founded in fact or reality

here's what you need to know: As long as Obama was born in HI, after statehood, he's a natural born citizen. It doesn't matter that his father was not a citizen. It doesn't matter that he was born with dual citizenship.

This is going nowhere and it's nothing to worry about.

[windy252]

8. yeah, I'm probably just being paranoid.

It was Thomas' actions that concerned me.

[POAS]

9. Another paranoid here

I won't rest until the next (post Obama) President is sworn-in in 2017.

When a website has already been setup to promote the idea of Obama's crimes you know the vile will not ever rest.

[Historic NY]

10. Its an example of "natural born morans".

[cooolandrew]

11. I think recent SCOTUS decisions indicate that they know 4 more years is the end for>

them and us. This is more a decision to keep the crazies quiet as they are rabid out there just check out paltalk voice chat secret service should check some of the anti Obama rooms.

[1corona4u]

12. I don't think your problem is anxiety...

I think it's paranoia. Is that you Rachel?

[Trajan]

14. Can someone distinguish paranoia from simple anxiety in a chat forum

When they appear to be misanthropic themselves ?

Just wonderin ...

[1corona4u]

20. Can someone on a message board distinguish if someone is

'misanthropic', when they themselves seem to be misanthropic?

We could do this all day, but I have a life to live outside of this board....

And yeah, I can tell the difference in paranoia, and anxiety. :eyes: It's the tone of the comment.

Can you tell I have a bitchy tone? I bet you can.

[Trajan]

21. I love people ...

I dislike mean people ...

Do the math ....

[tekisui]

15. It is baseless bullshit, nothing at all to worry about.

[Honeycombe8]

16. The S.Ct. site fails to show any application filed by a "Denofrio."

It's best to use AP or CNN or some recognized valid news source as a source for items like this. Using a conservative site is not a good idea.

Berg filed an application. That application was denied by Souter on 11/3/08. No Denofrio application was ever filed...and therefore, never considered or denied.

It seems to be a lie.

[cali]

17. it's Donofrio v Wells

SC docket number, 08A407. It's scheduled for conference on December 5th.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Ah. The reliable conservative site misspelled the applicant's name?

That doesn't give one a sense of reliability about the facts.

But nevertheless, I searched the docket and found it under the docket #. It has been set for consideration (not a hearing) for 12/5/08. No arguments will be made. The Justices will simply review the application among themselves and decide whether it should be reviewed and a hearing be set.

Mea culpa! Still...it doesn't relate directly to Obama or McCain. It has to do with the NJ Sec of State's procedures, I believe. It's hard to say, because the conservative blogosphere has writings all over the place about it, and they're confusing the narrow application with all sorts of Obama-related issues that are not involved. So it's hard to now exactly what they are asking for vis a vis the Sec of State. I'd have to review the NJ cases in order to know, I guess. Too much time.

I doubt this will go anyplace.

[CreekDog]

19. Nope, sorry can't and won't talk you down

if you really read that thread then you wouldn't need talking down.

secondly, the only reason this should worry you is if you are of the opinion that the Supreme Court will actually undo this election on a basis 100 times more flimsy than in 2000.

the likelihood of that is probably so low that you really should worry about other things right now.

[TexasObserver]

22. Sorry, but when anyone needs talking down I have to yell JUMP!!

JUMP! Do it!

Don't agonize. Don't fear the reaper. You can be like they are.


If it will make you feel better, there's zero chance of your fears being realized.