Skip to comments.SCOTUS denies re-hearing of Hollister vs. Soetoro, Obama
Posted on 03/07/2011 9:28:25 AM PST by charlie72
March 7, SCOTUS denies re-hearing of Hollister vs Soetoro with no comment.
The problem is that any halfway serious investigation into Obama will lead to questions, and these questions will be _very_ embarrassing and [criminally] incriminating of a LOT of people who are in the politically-elite class.
Wimps....I’ve lost all respect.
From the link:
10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL
Both Congress and the Supreme Court have abdicated their responsibility to insure we have an eligible President.
We don’t know if Sotomeyer and Kagan recused themselves, and if they did not they should be impeached for a conflict of interest.
Our dollar is being destroyed by Bernanke and Quantitative Easing to save the elite bankers and corrupt politicians.
How much more can we withstand before this stops? How do we stop it?
“How much more can we withstand before this stops? How do we stop it?”
The leftist freaks would have us believe the answer is to ramp up the hate against Republicans.
Even if the House and Senate agreed on impeachment (not likely), we can’t count on SCOTUS. However, when Dems realize they are going to lose badly in the next election, some may revolt. His failure to enforce DOMA and punishment of Black Panthers, along with high fuel and food prices may help convince some.
Obama knows he is going to lose and is getting bolder and more reckless. In September 2010 he renewed the national emergency powers given to Bush in 2001. When he shuts down the government, the dollar may crash, as well as our economy. The resulting riots and demonstrations or another manufactured crisis may result in declaring martial law.
Northcom and other military units are “fusing” with local police and ready to enforce his proclamations. He will be a military dictator. I don’t know whether this nation can keep its cool, when most realize we were betrayed, until 2012 elections (if allowed). What the world bankers foretold in the Mar. 12, 2008 secret meeting of Congress is coming to pass because of the treachery of the Democrat Party with aid from Republicans.
i guess from this point forward we are a country of the lawless...no one has to follow the law!
What happened to “’Birther’ Bill Is Fringe Of The Fringe”
if we had the electon today nobama would win...if it were 2012...he would win...we have become a country where half of the voters (notice i didn’t say citizens) are idiots and gladhanders...and are dependent on the fed and state doles!
Congress exercised its responsibility on January 8, 2009 when they certified the vote - without objection - and when the certification was signed by Richard Cheney of Wyoming.
The Supreme Court has NOTHING TO DO with elections or with the conduct of Congress' mandated responsibilities - and God forbid they ever claim any such power.
It seems lately that all of FreeRepublic has now become a “birther” site.
It seems lately that all of FreeRepublic has now become a “birther” site.
Apologies for the double post.
“It seems lately that all of FreeRepublic has now become a birther site”.
People here believe in the Constitution, and we want it enforced. Good Luck, & I hope that helps.
Wasn’t the court required to respond to the petition/motion (I don’t know the legal language) for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves? Did they respond to that?
Kagan the perv recused herself on some other cases but not on Hollister.
The SCOTUS is now irrelevant and useless.
One federal judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it very succinctly: “Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting President. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON— is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.”—US District Court Judge David O Carter, Barnett, et. al. v Obama, 10/29/09
Since that decision, no Court, in scores of attempts, including 13 attempts at the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled any differently from Judge Carter.
That's not true; you and I have to follow the law*... otherwise we will feel the full wrath of the government.
* Both _actual_ law and "because we say it is" law (which things like the BATFE are founded on).
There is no update on the SCOTUS site. So I am not believing this post at all. SCOTUSBlog is a leftist site.
I also do not see anything on SCOTUSBlog that says that it has been denied. I have called SCOTUS twice today in an attempt to reach the Clerk’s office, but haven’t been able to get through. So until I hear confirmation of this, I am not taking it as 100% truth, though, I tend to believe that this will indeed be the case.
I have little faith in this court to take up this matter.
Thomas has already said they are avoiding it. The Bastards.
(ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.)
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011
10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.
On the statement by Judge Donald Carter: In all the hearings previous, he was really zipping along toward an airing of eligibility issues, granting standing to the petitioners. Then he suddenly reversed, and OBTW, had acquired a new law clerk from the defendant’s then counsel, Perkins Coie (Seattle.) And, if memory serves, this particular clerk had an unusual credential an African background perhaps Kenyan, not African-American, African.
Yeah, I just got the update. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
There is no United States of America now. The Constitution is dead.
Article III of the US Constitution says the judiciary is given the responsibility of deciding any cases resulting from the US Constitution or the law.
The US Constitution says that there are certain requirements for anybody who is even ELIGIBLE to be POTUS. If there is a case arising out of the Constitution’s requirements for eligibility, the correct mode for people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” (a First Amendment right) to decide that CASE is the judiciary, which includes SCOTUS.
Congress has no power to decide legal cases. They are totally irrelevant to this discussion.
It seems lately that all of FreeRepublic has now become a site concerned with upholding the Constitution.
Corrections with apologies:
1. Judge is David not Donald Carter.
2. New clerk for the case, Sidhartha Valendra (sp.?) is not from Kenya.
If SCOTUS did not properly respond to the plaintiff’s motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves, then doesn’t the case just remain in the same condition it was before? Until that motion gets a response, the case remains open, right?
Does anybody know about that? The whole reason to file for a re-hearing is because the motion didn’t get a response. SCOTUS has to respond to that motion, don’t they? They can answer other questions (like whether they will re-hear the case) as many times as they want but until they actually rule on the motion in question they’ve just wasted a bunch of time without ever resolving this case, I would think.
Is that right?
I’m off to work, but would appreciate the input of anybody who knows anything about that, and I’ll see it when I get back home.
Curtain closed in this Act.
There’s another Act in this play. A few, probably.
But the process to put someone in the Presidency is political from beginning to end, deliberately, by design.
You are correct that the USSC may decide "cases arising under this Constitution". But the USSC has never defined this question as a "case", and, in my opinion, they will not (and should not) do so.
The courts do not decide political questions. The whole elaborate ritual of opening and counting the sealed votes in front of the sitting VP and every Senator and Member of Congress was designed to emphasize the entirely political nature of the process.
And, lest you think I am defending "Obama" or his interests, I am not.
That a person such as the man who calls himself "Obama" could have been chosen to be President is a symptom of very, very deep-seated problems, problems which me may well not survive.
The Supreme Court, however, has already amassed (much) too much power. They should not be accorded the power to dismiss a President.
That's our job in the first instance (by not electing him) and Congress' job secondarily.
Should it be necessary to remove him by extraconstitutional or even extralegal means, the harm tha would be visited on this land would be, in my view, extreme. I pray that that will not become necessary.
It is my view that the USSC is correct is avoiding this, the ultimate political question. We have to resolve it ourselves, or live with the consequences.
But Obama may be from Kenya, we don't know for sure.
.......these guys and gals on the Supreme Court are just plain ole human beings like the rest of us except, for the most part, they are more highly educated and experienced in the law, ergo, they are not idiots and know EXACTLY what they are doing.
So, the fact that they have turned down this case 13 times means ITS OVER! As Justice Thomas said, they are scared of this case. So are our legislators and if they became 100% Republican nothing would change. It’s almost to the point I think where some of us just hope the government does shut down completely because “our system” is broke and “nothing else” will FIX IT !!! Then, we can sort it all out from there. So, in my humble opinion, and I’m just one man, “to hell with the status quo, shut it down and then “pay U.S. bills by priority”..............like the rest of us!......and then when all the money is gone............so be it!
So in other words, the king can do no wrong.
I don’t agree with your position.
I have doubts about Obama's qualifications and I think the issues should be pursued, but it has become absolutely clear to me that the GOP feels that this matter is a dry well.
It's not the court's job to run this country, thankfully.
For this case, hearing the case at all is discretionary on the part of SCOTUS (just as a general procedural matter, a case being heard by a District Court, then reviewed by a higher appellate court, has run its course - SCOTUS may take the case from the reviewing court, but that is a discretionary choice. Not so with the first appellate court, that court MUST take the case).
Anyway, at SCOTUS, a Motion for Rehearing is available as a matter of right; but SCOTUS can reject the Motion. This "Motion for Rehearing" activity also goes on after a reviewing court decides a case.
So evil leftists and compromised eunuchs run the country.
And both the judicial and legislative branches (what to speak of executive) s*** on the Constitution.
Yes, and it did. It denied the motion. Not unusual, most cases presented to SCOTUS are disposed of in one line responses, "Cert. denied."
Well, I don't know about that. Take Chairman Issa, for example. He's certainly no leftist. He has the power to subpoena all of the Hawaiian birth records anytime he wants. No court will deny that Issa has that power, if he chooses to use it.
So, why doesn't Issa subpoena these materials? Good question. Some people thinks Issa views us "birthers" at nutcases and he doesn't want to be associated with us. Other people think he's been compromised by events in his past and is being blackmailed.
I don't know the answer(s) to why the GOP has dropped the ball on this issue, but clearly it isn't going to pursue this matter. I know that, you know that, and the Court knows that.
1. Eunuchs - scared little wabbits.
2. RINOs who agree with globailst socialism but are “lite”.
3. Compromised in some way.
There is no other alternative.
On the statement by Judge Donald Carter: In all the hearings previous, he was really zipping along toward an airing of eligibility issues, granting standing to the petitioners. Then he suddenly reversed, and OBTW, had acquired a new law clerk from the defendants then counsel, Perkins Coie (Seattle.) And, if memory serves, this particular clerk had an unusual credential an African background perhaps Kenyan, not African-American, African.
I think you’ve arrived at an accurate view of this matter.
Who besides the SCOTUS has any jurisdiction in this eligibility question?
That being said, they should have submitted the case for review by the Attorney General, considering it contained a criminal complaint with valid evidence a crime was and still is being committed.
This is where the courts are failing in their duties. Not surprising. It has been going on for decades.
"The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
A lack of constitntional qualifications is a basis for impeachment and upon conviction, removal from office.
There isn't any other constitutional way to remove a healthy and living president from office, for any reason. Period.
To be a “political question” in terms of the judiciary, the Constitution has to directly and specifically give the job to a different branch of the government. Where does the Constitution ever give any other branch the job of determining who is or isn’t eligible to be President? Specific reference, please.
If a political process (other than the political process of amending the Constitution) nullifies the Constitution then we are not a Constitutional republic.
My feelings are hurt. I guess I'll have to try harder.
It denied the motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves? Can you show me where they responded specifically to that motion - as opposed to simply denying the request to re-consider the case?
The only reason the case could be re-filed was because the court never gave a legal response to the motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves. When was that motion specifically answered?
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.