Posted on 04/16/2010 7:23:33 AM PDT by penelopesire
A curious thing happened in the Supreme Court budget hearing yesterday. Rep. Joe Serrano went on a long monologue about 'diversity' in the court and even said he would be glad when the day came, that a Puerto Rican could be president...to which Thomas replied that the court was avoiding that question. Nervous laughter ensues and the topic is quickly dropped. I'd like to know what my fellow FReepers think of the exchange.
It happens around the 1:13-1:14:10 mark in the video. It would be great if someone could isolate that exchange and put it on YouTube so everyone could hear it without sitting through the entire hearing.
Very often, when the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case (”grant certiorari”), the Court’s order will say: “Certiorari denied. Justice ___ dissents.” Sometimes, a justice will even write a dissenting opinion explaining why they think the case should have been heard. No justice recorded any dissent in any Obama eligibility case (I think there have been 7 or so that reached the Court, all denied).
Thank you, ‘So, I must be dense, lol
Is that good or bad?
Does that leave the BC situation up in the air?
“No justice has written a dissenting opinion on any of them....because they are all “avoiding” the question as justice Thomas just pointed out. ‘
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH, it finally sunk in, thanks, now I can go post this at a forum that hates me, lol
This is very interesting. Thanks for posting the info, as well as your efforts to locate her records. I agree..there is something very strange about this whole family (besides them being a bunch of commies)!
Wasnt there a vote on one of the cases (Berg’s case maybe) and cert was denied?
If so, I doubt Thomas voted not to hear it. He isn’t one of the justices who voted against hearing the case.
lol. good luck. don’t let them get to you. the truth will come out, someday.
That doesnt mean there were no justices who voted in favor of hearing the case. I strongly doubt it was unanimous, as very few of their decisions are.
Actually, many are (though not usually the high profile ones). But when there's a dissent, the court's decision says so.
I hope truth will prevail,
Actually, many are (though not usually the high profile ones). But when there's a dissent, the court's decision says so.
It is interesting, to me anyway, that NONE of them wanted to go on record with a dissenting comment (thus, we don't know). Like justice Thomas said, they are avoiding the issue.
As do I!
It’s been a while since I read about whether every case sent up to the SCOTUS gets heard at a conference.
Maybe BP2 or Red Steel will chime in on this.
If four justices vote in favor, cert is granted. This “rule of four” is an informal rule of long standing developed and adhered to by the justices. Cert votes are not made public.
Some justices have recorded cert votes and left them in their private papers, but usually it is impossible to know how the justices voted. From time to time, a justice will feel strongly enough about a case to note publicly a dissent from the denial of certiorari. This may be accompanied by an opinion outlining why the case should have been taken.
Some justices, however, disapprove of any public airing of cert votes and refuse to write dissents from denials. Dissents from denial of cert are uncommon except that Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall always noted that they would grant cert in cases involving the death penalty because they believed capital punishment is unconstitutional.
Note my comment above - I should added your name in the To box. About whether every case sent to the SCOTUS goes to conference (or not?).
They all do. U.S. Supreme Court Rule 15(5).
I'm no fan of Obama, but I wouldn't be so sure about that.....
~~~
And sadly, how many FReepers have we heard echo that same sentiment, worried about civil unrest, etc. .. even before the election. No doubt the congresscritters, govt. officials, judges and pundits were and are so bowed and intimidated by the fear of the risk of being politically incorrect or labeled racist that they were and are still in the this same leaking ship of state.
And look where we are now!!!
It will take a huge dose of fortitude, selflessness, courage and devotion to the preservation of this country and the Constitution from some judge to step into this breech, if a justiciable case does meet the bar.
Even were it not for his diabolical policies and radical vision and plans for America, even if he was the most wonderful potus ever, the eligibility requirement at hand must be resolved completely and irrefutably .. once and for all... so that full trust in our government will be restored and the Constitution will be preserved and endure as sovereign.
Please pray for America and that the day soon comes when the salve of truth eliminates this plague of darkness and doubt. God bless us all .. Lord, please bless and preserve our precious America.
|
His mom wasn’t a citizen? His mom was clearly a US citizen, a natural-born Citizen to be exact. She could have been president had she ever been in the US long enough after reaching 35 year of age to meet Article II, § 1, cl. 5’s residency requirement of “and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” There has been some discussion about Ann Dunham being able to transfer her US citizenship to her baby, due to her age and the Naturalization laws on the books at the time in 1961, if and ONLY if her baby, Barack Obama Jr was NOT born on US soil. Furthermore, the location of his birth is not as straight forward as it might seem, simply because of the loopholes in Hawaii HRS 338 and Family Court Rules which can mask or seal the original birth record from the Hawaiian Vital Statistics office. SO, even if a certified copy similar to FactCheck's abbreviated Certification actually finds its way in court as prima facie, it may not show ALL relevant information that would affect his natural-born Citizen status. For example, if Obama Jr was born in Vancouver in an orphanage environment as some have suggested, but then Ann decided not to give up her baby upon his birth, she could have called her mother in Hawaii and asked her mother to serendipitously register the baby as a home birth in Hawaii. Her mother could have simply forged Ann's signature on the Hawaii registration form in 1961, turning it in to a sympathetic clerk who could have been told that the mother and baby were sick or off the island. Hawaii Vital Statistics would have then send out the notices to the local newspapers, that then would have published the birth as if the infant was born in one of the two hospital at the time that specialized in childbirth ... hence the unique phrase of "Date Filed by Registrar" that appears on Obama's COLB versus the more standard phrase "Date Accepted by State Registrar".
At the heart of the matter is the fact that his FATHER was never a US Citizen and Obama Jr was born as British subject, an exemption that ONLY the Framers wrote for themselves. The Framers ALSO were British subjects until the Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolutionary War on September 3, 1783. On that day, if they so chose to remain in the United States, they were in effect Dual Citizens of both England and the United States, hence the “loophole” they wrote for themselves:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. Obama Jr, who was born in 1961 as both a US Citizen from his mother and a British subject from his father clearly does not qualify for the 18th Century loophole and is therefore a de-facto President at this time. |
MEGA BUMP!!
Good post!
I agree, as you probably figured since you replied to my post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.