Skip to comments.Why Obama has already lost in Supreme Court v Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et al
Posted on 01/11/2009 9:18:59 AM PST by FreeManN
Im 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 themeshow 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, theyve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral Colleges votes) to discuss Bergs writ of certiorari; the case cant be dismissedBerg 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 Bergs injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral Colleges votes!
Theres no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially its a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesnt comply by January 16th, the Justices will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral Colleges vote count!
So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Courtwell guess what? Obamayouve already lost! Checkmate!
You are correct, but it makes sense that SCOTUS is giving Obama time to come clean and resign to avoid prison time. In addition, now the Electoral College is out of the picture since they certified Obama- SCOTUS can DQ him without any real interference.
“Donofrio was denied cert because it limited the issue to intent of Founders re: NBC.
Berg hasnt yet been granted because he did not have standing until the demorats foolishly rammed through bos certification in Congress. Now Congress has no jurisdiction over bos ineligibility. It is in the hands of the Supreme Court and Berg now has standing as do all the people harmed by bos fraud.
But perhaps the strongest cases are Lightfoot and Keyes. That is what the SC has been waiting for, the strongest case on which to rule.
If the SC does not find bo ineligible then the next round of Military cases will go to the SC. This will NOT end until bo is ruled ineligible to be POTUS. It is as simple as that.
Some ignorant obots have made a big deal about the fact that no case has been granted cert. herefofore. The ignorant obots talk about the Supremes scheduling cases for conference as a mere courtesy. NONSENSE! If the Supremes have been courteous it is to bo. They are giving him the chance to resign and not go to prison for countless crimes of dishonesty.”
What about AFTER the inauguration which is only days away? Even if the Supreme Court rules against him, if Obama needs to be impeached by Congress, it will never happen.
The birthers are not 'the right wing' and they do a fine job of making themselves look foolish without assistance. This article is a fine example ... it teeters on the edge of delusion.
No he would not have to be impeached if he is ruled to be unqualified by the SC. He would simply be removed or forced to resign.
I have read other posts on this topic that say, the US doesn’t care what the law is in themother countries, you’s still be a citizen if you were born here. Can you provide a citation regarding dropping your US citizenship?
the other countries
But if hes not a natural born citizen then according to the Constitution hes ineligible to assume the presidency.... Will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does with it.
***This issue has attracted about 25 trolls on little jeremiah’s list, several who openly admit to being provocateurs. Does that match your vision of defending the constitution?
Only 25 trolls out of 300,000+ constitution supporting posters? Not bad. Good thing we’ve got them outnumbered.
This is about a man who would be POTUS, trained from the start in Chicago politics, hiding something that shouldn’t need hiding.
***More and more I’m reminded of Caesar crossing the Rubicon. He cut his teeth on Roman politics before he went out and conquered Gaul. And like our calculating politician who has emerged from a room full of long knifed Chicago political fights, his strategy and tactics will serve him well in the soft underbelly of the capital of the nation. What would have been the duty of a loyal Roman republican citizen who knew what was happening and was there watching Caesar crossing that river?
Let’s just say he who laughs last, laughs best!
The lack of evidence is a result of 0bama not producing evidence. The onus is on him, especially with his questionable background.
PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS UNDER THE BERG CASE ORDER:
THE MOTION OF BILL ANDERSON FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF A AMICUS CURIAE IS GRANTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CENTIORARI BEFORE JUDGEMENT IS DENIED.
Amicus Curiae briefs are filed in many Supreme Court matters, both at the Petition for Writ of Certiorari stage, and when the Court is deciding a case on its merits.
Some studies have shown a positive correlation between number of amicus briefs filed in support of granting certiorari, and the Court's decision to grant certiorari. Some friend of the court briefs provide valuable information about legal arguments, or how a case might affect people other than the parties to the case.
Some organizations file friend of the court briefs in an attempt to "lobby" the Supreme Court, obtain media attention, or impress members.
"An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored." Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Thanks for the information in your post #193.
I will take the granting by the SCOTUS to be a positive sign until further notice. Thanks!
The writ is not denied - just denying it before hearing the Amicus Curiae.
I see this same question was posed as its own thread by dascallie.
I’ll look through the answers there and see if I can add value.
Only 25 trolls out of 300,000+ constitution supporting posters? Not bad. Good thing weve got them outnumbered.
***Umm, that’s ~25 out of ~250 or so who regularly post on the CertifiGate threads, or about 10%. Your viewpoint is off by 3 orders of magnitude. The last time trolls were this brazen was when we were surrounded by Rudybots. You didn’t pay that much attention back then, either, until you got into the trenches with us and found disgust in dealing with them — in particular I think it was CeltJewLibertarian. Soon afterwards, you opened up the bugzapper thread and I think even you were probably surprised by how far afield the RINOs were from the basic conservative viewpoint. But this time around the damage has already been done because even if you were to remove all these trolls, we’re very close to the decision point and they have accomplished what they intended. There is no time left to recover.
No, they dont bring cases up to conference based on courtesy.
***I wish we could get the constitutional scholars and lawyers on this site to weigh in on that statement. It strikes me as perfectly sensible, but all I hear is hemming & hawwing when I ask about it.
If they take the case and discover that hes not a natural born citizen then they should declare him ineligible and call for a new election.
***Calling for a new election wouldn’t be constitutional. The 20th amendment calls out the constitutional process if the PE fails to qualify.
20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts 12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,825+ views Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution
It is strange, to see a new class of troll operating on these threads... the amusement troll. They read the first sentence of the first page of the main statement by JimRob and they find amusement at provoking those who defend the constitution. I simply do not understand why JimRob allows them to operate out in the open like that.
Statement by FR’s Founder:
In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution