Blatant voting fraud: Biden defies the SCOTUS in order to buy votes with US tax dollars

Boris Norris said:
And nowhere in that did it say the SC ruled anything.
You have inadvertently proven what I said. You as easy as taking wheat from blind chickens.
Click to expand...
Obama claimed the money he sent to Iranian terrorists was from the money belonging to the Shah that was frozen in 1979.

Obama had no right to "resolve the lon-running dispute over frozen assets." SCOTUS finally resolved the long-running dispute

The Obama administration has said the $400 million payment, and another $1.3 billion paid in interest, wasn’t ransom but was part of a deal to resolve the long-running dispute over frozen assets once controlled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The cash transfer, besides resolving the financial standoff, helped seal a nuclear agreement the U.S. and its allies negotiated with Iran’s leaders. White House officials also have said they hoped the deal might lead Iran to moderate its behavior.

Here is how the "long-running dispute" was legally resolved, 2 months after Obama jumped the gun for unlawful reasons.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-terror-victims/index.html 4-20-2016

Supreme Court rules in favor of terror victims

Updated 4:10 PM EDT, Wed April 20, 2016
01:59​

WashingtonCNN —

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of victims of terrorism and their families in a 6-2 split, clearing the way for them to collect nearly $2 billion from the central bank of Iran.

The court decided Congress had not exceeded its authority when it passed a law aimed specifically at securing such restitution.

“(The law) provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the majority. “Applying laws implementing Congress’ policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the Judiciary.”
 
Werbung:
mark francis said:
Obama claimed the money he sent to Iranian terrorists was from the money belonging to the Shah that was frozen in 1979.

Obama had no right to "resolve the lon-running dispute over frozen assets." SCOTUS finally resolved the long-running dispute

The Obama administration has said the $400 million payment, and another $1.3 billion paid in interest, wasn’t ransom but was part of a deal to resolve the long-running dispute over frozen assets once controlled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The cash transfer, besides resolving the financial standoff, helped seal a nuclear agreement the U.S. and its allies negotiated with Iran’s leaders. White House officials also have said they hoped the deal might lead Iran to moderate its behavior.

Here is how the "long-running dispute" was legally resolved, 2 months after Obama jumped the gun for unlawful reasons.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-terror-victims/index.html 4-20-2016

Supreme Court rules in favor of terror victims

Updated 4:10 PM EDT, Wed April 20, 2016
01:59​

WashingtonCNN —

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of victims of terrorism and their families in a 6-2 split, clearing the way for them to collect nearly $2 billion from the central bank of Iran.

The court decided Congress had not exceeded its authority when it passed a law aimed specifically at securing such restitution.

“(The law) provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the majority. “Applying laws implementing Congress’ policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the Judiciary.”
Click to expand...
i dont see obama's name mentioned there
 
pjmret said:
i assume you can't prove your claims, then

One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress

Click to expand...
The real unanswered question is why did Obama think he should settle a long-running dispute that had been tied up in court for years just two months before the SCOTUS finally settled the dispute legally?
 
pjmret said:
where is it mentioned by scotus. quote scotus
Click to expand...
Where is what mentioned by SCOTUS? The Shah's money that had been tied up in a court dispute for decades before Obama decided on his own to settle the dispute just weeks before the SCOTUS settled the dispute legally?
 
mark francis said:
The real unanswered question is why did Obama think he should settle a long-running dispute that had been tied up in court for years just two months before the SCOTUS finally settled the dispute legally?
Click to expand...

settling disputes is a good thing.
 
mark francis said:
Where is what mentioned by SCOTUS? The Shah's money that had been tied up in a court dispute for decades before Obama decided on his own to settle the dispute just weeks before the SCOTUS settled the dispute legally?
Click to expand...
where is obamas name mentioned by scotus. duh.
you keep whining about obama, show me where scotus ruled he did something wrong.
 
mark francis said:
Where is what mentioned by SCOTUS? The Shah's money that had been tied up in a court dispute for decades before Obama decided on his own to settle the dispute just weeks before the SCOTUS settled the dispute legally?
Click to expand...

One can certainly disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to send a jet with cash to Tehran on the same day that American detainees were released, but the action taken did not violate the law passed by Congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...on-cash-deal-with-iran-prohibited-by-u-s-law/


post an expert who agrees with you that obama did something illegal.
 
mark francis said:
Obama claimed the money he sent to Iranian terrorists was from the money belonging to the Shah that was frozen in 1979.

Obama had no right to "resolve the lon-running dispute over frozen assets." SCOTUS finally resolved the long-running dispute

The Obama administration has said the $400 million payment, and another $1.3 billion paid in interest, wasn’t ransom but was part of a deal to resolve the long-running dispute over frozen assets once controlled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The cash transfer, besides resolving the financial standoff, helped seal a nuclear agreement the U.S. and its allies negotiated with Iran’s leaders. White House officials also have said they hoped the deal might lead Iran to moderate its behavior.

Here is how the "long-running dispute" was legally resolved, 2 months after Obama jumped the gun for unlawful reasons.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/04/20/politics/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-terror-victims/index.html 4-20-2016

Supreme Court rules in favor of terror victims

Updated 4:10 PM EDT, Wed April 20, 2016
01:59​

WashingtonCNN —

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of victims of terrorism and their families in a 6-2 split, clearing the way for them to collect nearly $2 billion from the central bank of Iran.
Click to expand...

You would have to ask, why was it not collected?
mark francis said:
The court decided Congress had not exceeded its authority when it passed a law aimed specifically at securing such restitution.
Click to expand...

See " HAD NOT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY"
Thanks for coming.
mark francis said:
“(The law) provides a new standard clarifying that, if Iran owns certain assets, the victims of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks will be permitted to execute against those assets,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the majority. “Applying laws implementing Congress’ policy judgments, with fidelity to those judgments, is commonplace for the Judiciary.”
Click to expand...
 
Werbung:
Back
Top