Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hollister v. Soetoro/Obama eligibility case to be reconsidered by Supreme Court
examiner.com Phoenix ^ | Linda Bentley

Posted on 02/27/2011 8:17:22 AM PST by freepersup

WASHINGTON – On Dec. 30, 2010, the day after Hollister v. Soetoro, challenging the constitutional eligibility of President Barack Obama, was docketed for the Jan. 14, 2011 conference of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), retired USAF Col. Gregory Hollister’s Attorney John Hemenway filed a motion for justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both appointed by Obama, to recuse themselves.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: certifigate; eligibility; naturalborncitizen; recusal; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2011

Will the usurper's appointees recuse themselves THIS time?

source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm

source: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/lawyers-for-colonel-hollister-v-soetoro.html

past FR link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2650286/posts

past FR link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2648964/posts

1 posted on 02/27/2011 8:17:25 AM PST by freepersup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freepersup

Deconstructing Obotulism PING!


2 posted on 02/27/2011 8:19:56 AM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
They should not be in voled.
3 posted on 02/27/2011 8:20:13 AM PST by troy McClure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/lawyers-for-colonel-hollister-v-soetoro.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2650286/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2648964/posts


4 posted on 02/27/2011 8:20:39 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Deconstructing Obotulism PING!


5 posted on 02/27/2011 8:20:47 AM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

one day closer.......


6 posted on 02/27/2011 8:25:53 AM PST by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

going.....going....goiiiiiingggg...


7 posted on 02/27/2011 8:27:54 AM PST by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

Don’t get too excited. The SCOTUS will kick this out just like every other eligibility case that has reached them. They are avoiding this issue like the plague.


8 posted on 02/27/2011 8:31:34 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

Hemenway has been reprimanded by the Court for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Obotulism is spot on. Good one.


9 posted on 02/27/2011 8:32:04 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: troy McClure

They’ve failed to recuse themselves in at least two other cases before the USSC involving the eligibility issue. This recusal is in the form of a motion. The clerk used the vernacular ‘request.’ Orwellian.


10 posted on 02/27/2011 8:36:18 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

Justice Thomas (if true) was overheard remarking at a social gathering that he needs 4, meaning only 3 justices have agreed to move the issue forward.


11 posted on 02/27/2011 8:40:09 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

I no longer have faith in the supreme court to do what is right. They were intimidated by the lefts continual attacks on them after making the right decision in the 2000 election.

Now, they don’t want anything to do with the presidency and constitutional issues surrounding who is holding that office.


12 posted on 02/27/2011 8:48:05 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Obama and the left are making a mockery of our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DarthVader

13 posted on 02/27/2011 8:57:12 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Sadly, I believe you’re right. Something drastic in another branch of gov. would have to occur in relation to the issue (and that would be seen as opening the door) for the USSC to act.


14 posted on 02/27/2011 9:02:46 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


15 posted on 02/27/2011 9:18:40 AM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

This worries me....in some ways I am glad they will hear the case, but what if...the end result is...that they decide differently what a natural born citizen is....what if they say, dual nationality...this would open the flood gates for people, who hate America, to become President....


16 posted on 02/27/2011 9:19:10 AM PST by Engedi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


17 posted on 02/27/2011 9:20:04 AM PST by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

bump


18 posted on 02/27/2011 9:22:14 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid! (Obama:If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun (the REAL Arizona instigator))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Engedi

Make certain they are reminded that it would be wonderful to have Nikki Haley or Bobby Jindal for president and see how they react.


19 posted on 02/27/2011 9:26:57 AM PST by Pete from Shawnee Mission
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

As much as I hate to say this, kagen and sotomayor will not recuse themselves (unethically without a doubt), and again this will not get through conference.

Makes me sick...


20 posted on 02/27/2011 9:30:24 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

They must be deconstructed too and sent to Siberia.


21 posted on 02/27/2011 9:31:48 AM PST by DarthVader (That which supports Barack Hussein Obama must be sterilized and there are NO exceptions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Danae

I think they have to be recused Hemenways motion was not heard/denied thus should be granted..we shall see...


22 posted on 02/27/2011 9:41:37 AM PST by rolling_stone ( *this makes Watergate look like a kiddie pool*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rolling_stone

I thihnk it might be different in SCOTUS, the justices are ethically bound to recuse themselves, BUT.... I don’t think they HAVE to. I seem to remember that it’s up the each justice.

Do you really think Kagen - even though she was on some certification cases FOR Obummer - or sotomayor are going to voluntarily recuse themselves? I have zero faith that they will. None what so ever.

I want to be wrong. More than I can possibly put into words. But I don’t think I am.


23 posted on 02/27/2011 10:05:56 AM PST by Danae (Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Engedi

It would also open the door for Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. No matter what they decide, they should just do it! One way or the other, there’s no trust in government anymore anywhere that I can determine. And that includes the Supremes.


24 posted on 02/27/2011 10:49:50 AM PST by vharlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2
Don’t get too excited. The SCOTUS will kick this out just like every other eligibility case that has reached them. They are avoiding this issue like the plague.

IMHO this is what that meeting between Obama and the SCOTUS that was featured here on FR some time back was all about. He was lining up the SCOTUS to avoid a confrontation over his eligibility. Also, I'll bet he took his oath of office in a non traditional manner after the so called "flubbed" oath on inauguration day. Just MHO.

25 posted on 02/27/2011 11:01:02 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannolis. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Engedi

“what if they say, dual nationality...this would open the flood gates for people, who hate America, to become President”

Yes its a risk. At some point they are going to have to define Natural Born Citizen. I would rather that they take it up while we have pretty much a conservative court. I would feel even better if Ginsberg can hold on til 2012 and we get a Republican president to appoint 1 additional conservative justice.


26 posted on 02/27/2011 11:13:53 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Danae
I think I would feel a little encouraged if they did not decide to recuse themselves. As I see it, there are roughly three plausible outcomes:
  1. At least one BHO appointee recuses herself and the case is granted further review.
  2. At least one recuses hereself, but the case is still denied.
  3. No recusals happen and the case is denied.

Of these, I definitely can't muster much hope that option #1 would occur. If option #3 occurs, as I think you're expecting (but not wanting), that would at least give me some hope that there's a good chance that 3 justices really would be willing to take up the case if given the chance.

I'm dreading, but honestly somewhat expecting option #2 in which the two BHO appointees will go ahead and recuse themselves and yet the case will still be denied. That would ever so disheartening.

Nevertheless, given the way everything else has gone, I fear that the only reason this case is scheduled for conference again is just so they can 'cross Ts and dot Is' to keep us nuts on the fringe from finding yet another technicality that would allow us to send it back through the system again.

Like you, I desperately hope I'm wrong about that, but I hate it when people get in frenzy and say thing like "In a stunning development, the Supreme Court has reversed its earlier decision and now wants to look at the Hemmenway case again. They've but it back on the conference schedule! That must mean they're going to give the case a hearing for sure this time!!"

Not quite so likely, I'm afraid, folks.

27 posted on 02/27/2011 11:26:43 AM PST by ecinkc (Wouldn't a congressman have tangible interest enough to pry the Long-Form from the HDOH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

I hope this is more successful than the last cases brought.
I wouldn’t count on kagan or sotomayor vacating their ring side seats either.

If he is ineligible ... do their appointments stand?


28 posted on 02/27/2011 11:33:21 AM PST by Munz (All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
Will the usurper's appointees recuse themselves THIS time?

Why? Do you expect them to vote to hear the case?

This is not a majority vote. The case is taken up by the entire court if four justices vote to hear it. Five justices can vote against it but as long as the other 4 vote for it then it advances. Kagan and Sotomayor voting or not voting, that doesn't change.

29 posted on 02/27/2011 11:41:21 AM PST by K-Stater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

Recussals by Sotomayor and Kagan (and no votes by Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer) are irrelevant to moving this appeal to a hearing before the full court.
It takes FOUR votes (the rule of four) to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is Supreme Courtese for “yes, we’ll hear your case.” There are five Justices appointed by Republican Presidents: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
Sotomayor and Kagan are not needed.


30 posted on 02/27/2011 11:45:41 AM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Is this the first time that a formal motion's been made to recuse the conflicted appointees? It was ethically up to both of them to recuse themselves voluntarily in the previous cases where they were seen as having a conflict of interest and they failed the test miserably. Filth. I can see these two spurious ‘Justices’ recusing themselves only if they know that there is not a majority on the Court with the heart to move the eligibility issue forward. If, they do recuse themselves and there are then five Justices remaining, is the majority now only three (required) to grant certiorari? This could be a crack in the armor, and a primary reason why they would not recuse themselves.
31 posted on 02/27/2011 11:57:19 AM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc
Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he'll go away.
32 posted on 02/27/2011 12:01:24 PM PST by ecinkc (Wouldn't a congressman have tangible interest enough to pry the Long-Form from the HDOH?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: K-Stater; jamese777

Perhaps I have the proverbial cart before the horse... would a recusal come before a vote to grant certiorari? If so, and it’s a big if so, does the majority threshold remain at 4, even though there are now just 5 Justices voting? Or does the majority shift to 3?


33 posted on 02/27/2011 12:08:19 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jamese777
This is the right observation for the acceptance of the case. However, they can influence the final decision should it be accepted.

If the rumor is correct with regards to the number of members who want to address this case, I am going to assume it is Alito, Scalia, and Thomas who are the ones who want to resolve the issue. Roberts would have to admit he suspected a problem when he swore Obama in and did nothing to address it. Kennedy is most likely sitting on the fence.

34 posted on 02/27/2011 12:10:42 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: devattel; All

Colonel Hollister: Obama’s Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants Comes Back as “Fail” and “SSN Not in File (Never Issued)”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/02/colonel-gregory-hollister-obamas-social.html#comment-form


35 posted on 02/27/2011 12:13:03 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he’ll go away.


Word to the intelligent: there’s no need to take my word for anything. Read about “the rule of four” for yourself and then decide.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5124615_role-supreme-court-justices.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-rule-of-four.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/history_cases.html


36 posted on 02/27/2011 12:13:57 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: freepersup

cross link to similar topic/thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2675653/posts


37 posted on 02/27/2011 12:20:12 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

This filing is excellent. If for no other reason, the courts must investigate this identity fraud perpetrated by the usurping “president”.

Thank you Mike.


38 posted on 02/27/2011 12:20:12 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
Brief bio about the reporter/author of the thread source article. She works for the Maricopa County CRIME Examiner.

Linda Bentley is an award-winning investigative reporter for Sonoran News in Cave Creek, Ariz. As a transplant from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Catalina Island, her background is as diverse as the places she's lived and the topics she covers. While she still dabbles with tile setting, etched glass, graphics and more, her articles on a variety of local and national subjects can be found weekly at SonoranNews.com. Contact Linda at LDBentley@gmail.com

39 posted on 02/27/2011 12:29:54 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devattel; All

Questions at posts 31 and 33. Your thoughts?


40 posted on 02/27/2011 12:32:57 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: devattel

This filing is excellent. If for no other reason, the courts must investigate this identity fraud perpetrated by the usurping “president”.


And it occured before he became POTUS, therefore he can be prosecuted as any other citizen.


41 posted on 02/27/2011 12:45:55 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
Unlike state and district courts, Supreme Court justices are encouraged, but not "required" to recuse themselves from cases.

The law, however, is quite clear on the matter:

28 USC § 455 states:

"Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

The real question is who enforces this statute and what are the penalties? To answer this question one has to visit the Constitution. Only Congress has the ability to remove a Supreme Court justice through impeachment, and it rarely happens.

As far as a recusal, there merely has to be a quorum to hear it. Quorum means majority. If there are only 3 justices, a quorum is 2. For 5 justices, the quorum is 3.
42 posted on 02/27/2011 12:50:44 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: devattel

This is the right observation for the acceptance of the case. However, they can influence the final decision should it be accepted.
If the rumor is correct with regards to the number of members who want to address this case, I am going to assume it is Alito, Scalia, and Thomas who are the ones who want to resolve the issue. Roberts would have to admit he suspected a problem when he swore Obama in and did nothing to address it. Kennedy is most likely sitting on the fence.


Yes, I agree with you and your supposition makes good sense.
Kagan and Sotomayor recusals would definitely matter if the Writ of Certiorari is granted by four Justices.


43 posted on 02/27/2011 12:55:10 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: devattel

Thank you for the clarity in this matter. One other question which is a key point (or a moot point; lol) would the recusal preceed a vote ?


44 posted on 02/27/2011 12:58:45 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike
Hotlanta Mike said:

And it occurred before he became POTUS, therefore he can be prosecuted as any other citizen.

Any president can be prosecuted like any other citizen for crimes defined in the judicial system.

Impeachment is a special form of punishing "misbehavior" by way of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors". Jefferson was quite clear on the definition he helped craft in the Constitution:

"There is another opinion entertained by some men of such judgment and information as to lessen my confidence in my own. That is, that the Legislature alone is the exclusive expounder of the sense of the Constitution in every part of it whatever. And they allege in its support that this branch has authority to impeach and punish a member of either of the others acting contrary to its declaration of the sense of the Constitution."

--Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:305
Jefferson clarifies the term "high crimes" to mean the highest law of the land, the Constitution.

In the event the judicial system prosecutes and imprisons a president, the 20th Amendment is used and Congress has the power to implement the process of succession. He is a citizen like everyone else, and is bound to the laws. If not, then he would be a king, something the founders declared unconstitutional.
45 posted on 02/27/2011 1:03:20 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Hotlanta Mike

46 posted on 02/27/2011 1:04:14 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ecinkc
Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he'll go away.

Very true, and worth repeating.

47 posted on 02/27/2011 1:04:20 PM PST by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: freepersup
freepersup said:

Thank you for the clarity in this matter. One other question which is a key point (or a moot point; lol) would the recusal preceed a vote ?

You are quite welcome.

Recusal must occur prior to the final decision. It is not clear as to whether or not a judge must recuse himself from a panel prior to accepting the case. Recusal after acceptance of a case causes issues, especially if quorum is lost. In this case the lower court decision would stand in the event a tie decision occurs.
48 posted on 02/27/2011 1:10:03 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: devattel
OK- thanks again, that's an interesting fact... I've been operating under a false mathematical premise all day, thinking in terms of 7 Justices (like a State Supreme Court) when in fact there are 9 USSC Justices. Duh! 2 recusals leave 7 Justices, and the rule of four would stand. I've been naive and overexhuberant in thinking 2 Justices that recuse themselves would somehow tilt the Court numerically and therefore favorably into granting Certiorari, when it hasn't been so inclined to do so otherwise. Dammit! I am now convinced more than before that 2 Justices will recuse themselves as their absence will not affect the rule of four tally one iota. I also tend to believe that Roberts is the holdout. Were I not chasing sobriety, I would hit the hard stuff right about now.
49 posted on 02/27/2011 1:34:58 PM PST by freepersup (Today, we raise our glasses of spirits and mugs of ale high- to Budge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: freepersup; All

Thanks for that!!!

Maybe David Gregory should ask Speaker Boehner whether he believes Obama’s SSN, the one most associated with the fraud, is valid???


50 posted on 02/27/2011 1:52:06 PM PST by Hotlanta Mike (TeaNami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson