Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/29/2010 4:02:48 PM PST by STARWISE
For Immediate Release - 29 November 2010 2:30 p.m. EST
U.S. Supreme Court orders were posted at 10:00 a.m. on 29 Nov 2010. See below. Certiorari for our case was denied.
The two justices appointed by Obama who had a direct financial conflict of interest (their very jobs and appointments to the court) in the outcome of this petition and case did not recuse themselves even though they should have!
Their recusal was called for in our petition on page 36.
The two justices and the court ignored that. There were recusals declared by these two Obama appointees in many other petitions including the one immediately before our petition in the orders list and the one immediately after.
IMO, apparently the court needed all nine justices in the room to kill the petition. With the full court of 9 justices it's the rule/vote of 4 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.
With two recusals that would have left only 7 justices and it's then the rule/vote of 3 to grant certiorari to move the case forward.
I suspect the water cooler buzz at SCOTUS were that 3 justices were leaning for granting certiorari. So it looks like Sotomayer and Kagan ignored ethical considerations and stayed in the review of the petition to be sure it got killed, i.e., to be in that room to argue against Certiorari, and to require 4 votes to grant cert instead of 3 ... financial conflict of interest and ethics be damned by those two justices. JMHO.
10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112910zor.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx
A Statement from CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The "Roberts Court" of the U.S. Supreme Court in my opinion will be known in history as the Neville Chamberlain supreme court, the great Obama appeaser court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain
Appeasement due to fear that some immediate small amount of veiled and threatened violence from the far left Saul Alinsky goons and tyrants and bullies, and thus not doing the right thing early only to support the rule of law and the Constitution, ultimately leads to be much bigger problems later.
History has shown us that over and over. This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't.
Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't.
The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't.
Everyone in our system of government chose ignoring the problem and appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else. Now it is far worse.
The Supreme Court has chosen appeasement and inaction over action and dealing with the issue and questions openly in a court of law under the rules of evidence and law. Our constitutional republic and legal system is now compromised and broken.
And it will only get worse as our legal system and constitutional republic further deteriorates and the rule of law gives way more and more to appeasement of bullies such as Obama and his far left cronies and puppet masters.
Appeasement of the constitutional usurpers will not make it go away. It will only delay the inevitable and fester and grow and in the end be a far worse situation to deal with when the real nature of the tyrant reveals himself in a much bolder way and attempts to take away all our protections to our unalienable rights and liberty.
Neville Chamberlain tactics never work with bullies, alinskyites, tyrants, and national socialists.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
The world sees it. That is why we have missle launches off of our coasts, threats from North Korea. The Saudis are a tool who can be eliminated in hours. It is now about power, and the street activist is not in control. We don't really know who that power is, but that must be part of the strategy. We are governed by a secret society, a Shadow Government, which has infiltrated our highest offices and our Supreme Court.
The implications will be discussed, but, for whatever little the Constitution means now, they have dismissed Article II Section 1, as well as the 14th Amendment. Since Obama’s jus soli - born on our soil - and jus sanguinis - born of citizen parents qualifications were not judged grounds for the demand of proof of compliance by citizens. Anyone who can hide his or her background can become president if the media support him. Since voting is entirely unverifiable we do not live in a representative republic, and there is no Consitution to protect those guarantees.
Now we will decide if and how to reclaim respect for the Constitution. Free speech may be next, so identifying local trustworthy groups may be critical to survival. Those actually in power have Constitution to answer to which will protect us. Our rights are not guaranteed.
If we are a majority we are about to find out what that means. Justices can and must be impeached, if we retain enough memory of what our ceremonies represent. Obama isn't a Constitutional President and cannot be impeached, but will stay as a figurehead. The Supreme Court will not honor, defend and protect the Constitution. We must remove the court which dishonored its oath. That means electing only representatives who have the courage to admit that they understand the Constitution. Natural born citizenship is part of our common law. Without men and women of integrity we will continue to fail, and fall as a society.
Too hearbreaking and tragically true.
God save America.
I have lost complete faith in what used to be our Federal Government.
THey have now lock, stock and barrel demontrated that they are nothing more than craven cowards.
And thus ends what was the United States of America.
I echo your emotions ... took a scheming village
to get us here. And I sense it’ll take God’s hand
and many courageous patriots .. again .. and much
pain to bring America back. Keep the faith — God
will not be mocked. The Angels are on the side of
righteousness .. keep praying.
Read Spaulding’s comment.
Your twin in principle!
Nihil est enim illi principi Deo qui omnem hunc mundum regit, quod quidem in terris fiat, acceptium, quam concilia coestusque hominum jure sociati, quæ civitates appellantur.
What does that mean, please? I cannot find a translation that I can make sense of. thanks.
I find myself asking “Where do we go from here?”
I really do think that Soros has threatened to collapse the world economy if the guardians of the US resist his coup. Until we get our economy away from the edge where Soros has enough power to send it tumbling, Soros will call all the shots, and not necessarily because everybody wants to be his puppet, but because they don’t want to send the US over the edge.
It may be a very, very good thing that the body the R’s have control of is the one from which all appropriations have to originate. If they can just refuse to fund anything but the necessities maybe we can get control of the deficit and get a secure enough footing that Soros can’t hold the nation’s infrastructure hostage.
I’d sure love to see Kagan and Sotomayor impeached, if the courts won’t ever allow a QW to get rid of them. They definitely should have recused themselves from this case, since they have both financial and personal interests in the outcome of it.
"Coetusque" was misspelt and probably led to your translation difficulty.
Actually, what I said was, "There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election."
Citing liberal judges engaged in judicial activism are perfect examples of what conservatives hate about the current state of the judiciary. Ignoring the will of the people. Are you suggesting the Supreme Court follow the example of those activist courts you cited and undo the last presidential election?
Other than you, I have asked several frequent birthers to name the Supreme Court Justices they thought might be receptive to the birther lawsuits. The answer was always the conservative members of the court. Anyone who has ever read Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts understands these men are philosophically opposed to interjecting themselves into electoral politics unless they absolutely have to.
I've never understood conservatives pushing the Supreme Court to overturn an election. It would be establishing a horrible precedence...one that would likely be used by the (Democrat Party) Trial Lawyers every 2 years to rid themselves of annoying conservative office holders.
The Constitution has a well defined remedy for a defective President.
Dude didn't knock off a liquor store...He was elected by a majority of voters. Conservatives should not want the Supreme Court deciding presidential elections halfway through the term.
I can't believe you're really that simple minded about what has occurred.
I repeat, is there a statute of limitations on the constitutional issue of OBummer's eligibility?
Also, where is it written in the constitution that if he got over half the vote, it voids the constitution's eligibility clause and the rule of law?
>> What does that mean, please? <<
I dunno. I don’t understand Latin. I just wanted to provide a quote from Vattel, so as to earn my tinfoil hat.
I am not suggesting Obama can't be convicted of a crime because the statute of limitations has expired. Sheeeesh!
While I believe most of the birther conspiracies range from misguided to ridiculous, there has always been only two possible, albeit implausible outcomes; impeachment, or the Supreme Court somehow invalidating the last presidential election. There was a legal window of “ripeness” for contesting the validity of the 2008 election (Ankeny v Indiana), but the further we got from the election results, the less likely a judicial remedy.
2 years and 80+ court cases later and still nothing. The courts have spoken loudly and repeatedly. They have no solution to offer. As a conservative, I am extremely grateful the judicial branch has recused itself from what is clearly a legislative issue.
As far as impeachment goes...since most of the Republican candidates were uncomfortable even talking about their kid's birthday for fear they would be mistakenly branded a birther, I seriously doubt there is much political support for birtherism hearings in the newly elected House.
I read the CNN article linked by Drudge. Actually it was not the venom i expected. It did state several facts about NBC issue.
It included an extensive quote by Apuzzo. This article had a totally different tone than previous ones. Can only guess why....
It is the job of the court to overturn unconstitutional elections. That’s why we have a Constitution; there are some things that need more than a 51% vote of the few people who actually vote, because some things are meant to be permanent. That’s why it takes so much more work to amend the Constitution - because the provisions of the Constitution are not supposed to be undone by a simple majority in an election somewhere.
If they want to change the natural born citizenship requirement for the POTUS they can’t do it through a simple one-time vote by 51% of the population which doesn’t even know they’re voting to undo the Constitution. They have to do it by the process the Constitution sets out, which is much more difficult because the Constitution is intended to be more permanent and stable than the whims of the electorate on a particular day.
Conservative justices are those who seek to CONSERVE - to preserve what is precious, and from a judicial standpoint that is the US Constitution. You dang right conservatives would overturn an election that would negate the Constitution. That’s precisely what the SCOTUS exists to do. That’s precisely why the CONSTITUTION exists. This is basic 8th grade social studies material.
In your defense of the usurper, you're the one who brought up an imaginary time limit thing in your post 5 con-man, not me.
Con-man stated:
"There is no way the conservative Justices would have participated in undoing a 2 year old election."
You are essentially stating that since OBummer and the Rats have gotten away with it for 2 years it trumps the constitution's eligibility clause.
Guess the supreme court can't rule on constitutional issues that are over 2 years old, especially if they aren't politically correct.
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.