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.
All Puerto Ricans are natural born citizens. They are born on American soil and their parents are citizens. Case closed.
Now, for BHO, it’s a totally different story.
It was a joke.
A Puerto Rican can be President.
Thomas didn't "accept" any case. Every case filed in the Supreme Court gets heard at a conference.
It went for conference with the 9 justices, and at least 6 thought the case wasn’t worth hearing. That means 0-3 thought it was...and I’d assume Thomas makes it at least 1.
There were no recorded dissents from any of the Supreme Court's denials of certiorari in eligibility cases.
>>> Wow ... your interpretation and mine are completely different.
Oh really? Well... take a look at it again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MNdweV8Qv4
Joke or not...it says alot. He admits that they are ‘evading’ the whole issue.
I listened to the segment at least 4 times.
No, he joked about evading the issue of Puerto Ricans being president. There isn’t even an issue there.
LOL...good one! It was kinda a veiled ‘umphhhh’.
>>> I listened to the segment at least 4 times.
The segment I was referring to is looped 4 times in the link I just posted so you can see with clarity that Thomas is being covertly sarcastic.
|
Justice Thomas: ‘The court is ‘avoiding’ the Natural Born Citizen question. Thomas was the first one to pick up an Eligibility Case for review in December 2008. He KNOWS this is an unresolved question of the Constitution as was "to keep and bear arms" until FINALLY resolved in 2008. In recalling the heat and grief the SCOTUS got from their ruling on Bush v. Gore in 2000, we will unfortunately need another Constitutional Crisis before the SCOTUS is willing to PUSH THROUGH the tall swamp weeds of judicial Political Question. We're pretty much there now ... |
I never said this was a ‘big issue’...only that it was a curious and interesting clip. Don’t read more into my post than is here.
“The Supreme Court plans to meet Friday to decide whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s president.
Justice Clarence Thomas picked up the petition to hear New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio’s lawsuit after it was denied by Justice David H. Souter. Justice Thomas referred it to the full court, which decided to distribute the case for the judges’ conference.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/05/court-to-weigh-question-about-obama-citizenship/
If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial. Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...
Thanks. I posted the exchange at #48.
>>> Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...
It was more important to them that they not appear to be interjecting their power into a national election.
I can see where even Justice Thomas could effectively argue that they had no choice but to let things play out in the legislature where the constitution requires it to be.
Petitions to hear cases are not "picked up" or denied by one Justice-- they all go to a full conference. What Souter and Thomas both denied was a motion by Donofrio for a stay of Obama's inauguration pending the court's conference (motions for stays are initially decided by one Justice).
If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial.
Not to "trial"-- there are no "trials" in the Supreme Court-- but to a full briefing, followed by an oral argument before the Court.
Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case.
There were no dissents recorded to the denial of certiorari, so the likelihood is that zero justices wanted to hear it.
It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...
That is exactly how I interpret the Supreme Court's refusal to hear at least 7 Obama eligibility cases without a single recorded dissent, coupled with the lower courts' dismissals of over 60 such cases, and the appellate courts' affirmances of those dismissals..
>>> Thanks. I posted the exchange at #48.
Guess I’m not quite sure what your interpretation is then...
and how it is different than mine.
I was analyzing his body language... not just what was said.
If there was a problem, the status at birth would be the determining factor, not what happened later.
We had a VP that was born in Kansas territory.
But as to Puerto Rico, the people who live there are US citizens, not just US nationals. Thus their children, in general, have two US Citizen parents, and the only question remaining would be "is Puerto Rico part of the United States, fully and permanently subject to it's jurisdiction" The answer has to be yes.
Plus there are lots of Puerto Ricans who were born in states, of parents who came from the Island, like several of my ACU wearing neighbors and their children (born in Texas!).
bump
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.