Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Obama has already lost in Supreme Court v Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et al
Anti Mullah Blog ^ | 1/11/09 | Tom Waite

Posted on 01/11/2009 9:18:59 AM PST by FreeManN

I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States.

But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys.

First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing!

And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes!

There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; eligibility; obamaillegal; obamanoncitizenissue; scotus; tinfoilalert; tinfoilhat; trolldeniers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
BO fought the Law & the Law won.
1 posted on 01/11/2009 9:18:59 AM PST by FreeManN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

I believe it when I see it. But I pray that you are right.


2 posted on 01/11/2009 9:22:34 AM PST by SolidWood (Sarah Palin - America the Beautiful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
LARGE PRINT GIVETH
Small print taketh away!

Works everytime.......

3 posted on 01/11/2009 9:23:47 AM PST by classified
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

This sounds like another API fantasy. Scotus is never gonna do anything.


4 posted on 01/11/2009 9:24:19 AM PST by screaminsunshine (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

What you say may be true, and I may live to see the day when your viewpoint is vindicated (for the record, I hope you are right).

But something tells me that Obama is going to be sworn on January 20 and he will be your President for the next four years: Constitution, facts, logic and the Law notwithstanding.


5 posted on 01/11/2009 9:25:25 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
He paid lawyers a lot of money to fight this. They are a talented team and they may still have a few tricks up their sleeves. And the tricks may be shady or criminal in nature. Just because they are lawyers does not mean they obey the law. Winning is the only thing.

Note that if just one SC justice is in fear of his life, he may set aside his scruples and shut down the case. We'll see....

6 posted on 01/11/2009 9:26:35 AM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
Today is the 11th....so what happened at the conference on the 9th....?

Anything Anyone....?

7 posted on 01/11/2009 9:27:02 AM PST by spokeshave (For every sunspot found, a Global Warming angel gets their wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Has anyone seen or posted any documents, brief, or response filed in any court by Obama’s attorneys?


8 posted on 01/11/2009 9:27:08 AM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

The fact that it’s gone as far as it has is noteworthy.


9 posted on 01/11/2009 9:28:27 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Is that you, Pollyanna?


10 posted on 01/11/2009 9:29:15 AM PST by wtc911 ("How you gonna get back down that hill?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

It would be sweet and it would be wonderful to see the Constitution upheld. But I think you’re dreaming. This whole thing is going to quietly pass right on by without even a whimper.


11 posted on 01/11/2009 9:29:45 AM PST by Taichi (Certe, toto, sentio nos in kansate non iam adesse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

On Friday the SCOTUS did not engage in a move of check. Rather, they moved an out of the way pawn and yielded control of the center of the board. This is poor chess and poor political maneuvering.


12 posted on 01/11/2009 9:32:12 AM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

He hasn’t had to because none of the cases have been able to establish standing. Without standing there is no case. Until standing can be shown they are frivilous cases.


13 posted on 01/11/2009 9:32:20 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes!

And in the real world, John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court will administer the Oath of Office to Barack Hussein Obama on January 20th, 2009.

It'll be on TV if you want to watch it live.

14 posted on 01/11/2009 9:32:52 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

My guess as a non-lawyer is that as long as the SCOTUS members do not issue a ruling, no precedent is set that could affect future court cases of this type. Because of the sensitivity of this particular election, and the ramifications of ruling that Obama would not be eligible to be president, the SCOTUS members may not want to rock the boat at this time, but want to leave the door open for future challenges of future presidents to be.

This is just my uneducated opinion.


15 posted on 01/11/2009 9:33:01 AM PST by murron (Proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

I’m not terribly interested in this issue because it will not be allowed to unseat the Messiah.

Still, he could end all this by simply providing it. He won’t, and that puzzles me.

Doing so would make the right wing look foolish.

Not doing so makes him seem foolish.


16 posted on 01/11/2009 9:34:51 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DE88

I wonder how much money Berg has been able to generate with this charade? I’d wager a guess that at least 1000 people have sent in the $50 he is requesting. Nice little moonlighting gig.


17 posted on 01/11/2009 9:35:07 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

"The justices are considering your petition."

18 posted on 01/11/2009 9:37:09 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
I wouldn't call a handful of conspiracy theorists the right wing.
19 posted on 01/11/2009 9:39:22 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DE88

They why does every thread say that OB has spent hundreds of thousands in attorney fees fighting the cases?


20 posted on 01/11/2009 9:44:06 AM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

How is Obama “checkmated” just because the court ssets a couple hearing dates?


21 posted on 01/11/2009 9:44:52 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

Decisions are announced the Monday following the conferences, around 10am, IIRC. Whatever they decided on Friday the 9th will be announced on Monday the 12th.


22 posted on 01/11/2009 9:45:30 AM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DE88

Perhaps not, be he could put an end to this.

For whatever reason, he’s chosen not to.


23 posted on 01/11/2009 9:45:56 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Dream on.

I will be pleased if I am wrong, but I’m not.


24 posted on 01/11/2009 9:46:55 AM PST by Poser (Willing to fight for oil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: 17th Miss Regt

Think about it.

If you were a Supreme what would be your greater fear?

1) An incompetent illegal alien hires a hit man to kill me or;

2) An radical-islam-supporting-illegitimate POTUS allows terrorists to bomb the Supreme Court.

Isn’t it a no-brainer? bo’s buddy ayers already bombed the Capitol. If the SC allows bo to be POTUS, they must know that the SC will be bombed within days by bo allies, since the SC is our last Civil Defense against bo.


26 posted on 01/11/2009 9:48:18 AM PST by FreeManN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: nufsed

Because it makes the need to raise money for this “fight” an easier sell. As best I can tell so far all this is about is extracting money from as many conservative’s pockets as they can sell on the validity of their “case”. I would file it under “scam”.


28 posted on 01/11/2009 9:51:54 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog Gone

From what I can tell he feels he has already put an end to it from the earlier release of the BC on the web. As a practical matter most attorney’s would say that once you start reposnding to these types of frivilous suits you just invite more.


30 posted on 01/11/2009 9:54:00 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
They why does every thread say that OB has spent hundreds of thousands in attorney fees fighting the cases?

Just like every thread claims he traveled to Pakistan when it was prohibited for Americans to travel there (travel was not prohibited). If you repeat something so many times people will accept it as the truth and say "it must be true because I've read about it so many times on the internet!"

In this case, the argument goes something like this: Routine motions to dismiss have been filed on Obama's behalf. Lawyers are expensive. Therefore, Obama must have spent hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars fighting to keep his birth certificate sealed (something the State of Hawaii does for free in accordance with state law).

31 posted on 01/11/2009 9:54:00 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: murron
but want to leave the door open for future challenges of future presidents to be

At this point, that's probably the best guess.

After The One gets impeached, or moves home to a thatched hut in Kenya, perhaps measures to prevent such a problem again will be quietly implemented....like asking for a damn birth certificate at the state level when running for the nomination.

32 posted on 01/11/2009 9:54:05 AM PST by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! The looting begins in five minutes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cheddar Cat

The cost to Berg so far would be at a max $500 and his time.


33 posted on 01/11/2009 9:57:26 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Ahh the paid obamabot rears its head right on cue.


34 posted on 01/11/2009 10:02:39 AM PST by Canedawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Pure fantasy. You’ve lost it dude.


35 posted on 01/11/2009 10:04:26 AM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg
Ahh the paid obamabot rears its head right on cue.

Don't wanna miss out on all the fun!

36 posted on 01/11/2009 10:05:38 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You must be a masochist.


37 posted on 01/11/2009 10:10:13 AM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: classified
LARGE PRINT GIVETH
Small print taketh away!

Step Right Up

Sums up Bambi in total.

38 posted on 01/11/2009 10:13:26 AM PST by rawcatslyentist (Proud non productive worker under directive 10-289)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

Obama has already lost because of other facets.
On November 13, allegations surface that the Selective Service System registration form showing that Obama registered for the draft is a forgery. The form’s document location number (DLN), 0897080632, indicates a 2008 entry into the federal system, because the first two digits (08) indicate the year. (Had Obama registered in 1980, the first two digits of the DLN would have been 80, rather than 08.) Obama’s document also appears to be a 1990 form, modified to look like a 1980 form. The date the form was signed is July 30, 1980, yet the form has a date stamp of July 29. The date stamp reflects the letters “USPO” for United States Post Office, but in 1980 the letters would have been “USPS,” for United States Postal Service. A retired federal agent had requested the Obama form via the Freedom of Information Act; it took almost a full year for the document to be “found.” Note that Obama’s story about registering for the draft has changed more than once. He originally said he registered for the draft on 1979, when he turned age 18, but there was no requirement to register at that time. Note that failure to register with the Selective Service is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or up to five years in prison; it also renders the individual ineligible for any job in the Executive Branch of government or the U.S. Postal Service [483,493]

An Obama campaign spokeswoman tells reporters that lawsuits attempting to force the candidate to prove he is eligible to serve as President are “garbage.” At the same time, Obama continues to refuse to produce his birth certificate, and has sheriff’s deputies stationed at two hospitals in Honolulu, where they are preventing press inquiries and attempts to request copies of records. [490]

http://www.colony14.net/id41.html


39 posted on 01/11/2009 10:14:25 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DE88

How are they frivolous? He produced a forged CoLB document towards a straightforward constitutional requirement. Frivolous cases do not get forwarded for conference in SCOTUS 5 times. Note that most of the trolls operating on these threads do not answer these contentions. We’ll see if that doesn’t apply to you.

I hope the attorneys continue to tell him not to respond if the SCOTUS requests a copy of the long form BC.


40 posted on 01/11/2009 10:15:28 AM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Wondered how fast you would show up here. So how much do you get paid to monitor these bc posts and report back to Axelrod?


41 posted on 01/11/2009 10:15:53 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: murron
My guess as a non-lawyer is that as long as the SCOTUS members do not issue a ruling, no precedent is set that could affect future court cases of this type. Because of the sensitivity of this particular election, and the ramifications of ruling that Obama would not be eligible to be president, the SCOTUS members may not want to rock the boat at this time, but want to leave the door open for future challenges of future presidents to be.

This is just my uneducated opinion.

Let's try to get inside the mind of the SCOTUS as it's operating right now. What's grabbing their attention?

SCOTUSblog.com has decided to hear Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita as consolidated cases. These cases concern voter ID guidelines and voting rights.

Take a look at how the Justices are split on this issue.

I'll post this as a separate article ("The Partisan Elephant in the Room") because I think it has a bearing on the fortunes of the BO natural-born qualification cases currently before SCOTUS.

42 posted on 01/11/2009 10:18:03 AM PST by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Eye of Unk

But if the sheriff’s deputies are in Honolulu, what’s the problem? Presumably they are protecting HAWAIIAN birth records...


43 posted on 01/11/2009 10:19:05 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

I think a better word would be asshole.


44 posted on 01/11/2009 10:19:10 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

So Drew68 and DE88 are the same person?


45 posted on 01/11/2009 10:20:24 AM PST by browniexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6
You must be a masochist.

Nah. The real masochists are the ones waiting every Friday for the Great Pumpkin to appear with a writ of certiorari in its hand, only to be disappointed again and again and again and again...

46 posted on 01/11/2009 10:22:37 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

Lots of noise, but just that. This Obama corrupt political machine will not allow the SC to have any power. We are in the first stages of Communism and very little can be done. The vast liberal followers believed this nitwit.


47 posted on 01/11/2009 10:25:08 AM PST by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I bet you have pictures of zer0 on the ceiling above your bed so you can go to sleep and wake up adoring your master.


48 posted on 01/11/2009 10:25:47 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

How is it frivilous? It has been ruled that he has no standing to bring the issue forth. All he has to do is make an application with the Supreme Court to have his Writ to request a conference. It is not referred or forwarded by any other court.


49 posted on 01/11/2009 10:27:13 AM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Logical me
We are in the first stages of Communism No parade until the final stage and he will never get away with it.
50 posted on 01/11/2009 10:28:21 AM PST by mojitojoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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