>> . . . What's the first thing you notice about the judge's subpoena to BHO? <<
The judge's subpoena to BHO. I had no idea he actually subpoenaed Obama to appear in his court on Jan. 26. Somehow I don't think he'll be successful in getting that served. Not having ever received a subpoena and not knowing what they should contain I have no idea what might be unusual about this one.
>>What does "roll the same" mean? [about Mitt and Hillary]<<
There would not be that much difference between how they run the presidency.
>> . . . Also, we would not have to worry about whether he'd try to repeal Obamacare. If Judge Malihi's trial deposes Obama, every single one of Obama's executive orders, appointments, and bills he signed will be null and void. *POOF* . . .<<
Maybe. I wouldn't count on that. Those are acts of congress and president Biden could sign them.
>>That would be a radical reinterpretation of the SC precedent which has already been succeeded by at least twenty-five (25) citations. . . .<<
It doesn't change the original interpretation, it just adds to it. The SC might not want to go there though because then almost anyone (let's say distant relatives) who are American citizens could be used to justify NBC status should the SC deem it so.
>> . . If the Supreme Court changed that Minor v. Happersett precedent the resulting response would eclipse anything we've ever seen. Constitution adherents would be enraged en masse to the point of strokes and heart attacks, and the survivors would rush with t0rches to all of Washington, DC.<<
Don't be so sure. To most people that's inside baseball, they'll defer to the experts.