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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-206 next last
To: MHGinTN

Why are you calling him my messiah? I’m simply pointing out the ridiculousness of these court cases. You obviously don’t like that, but that doesn’t mean you have to result to ad hominem attacks.


151 posted on 01/11/2009 3:25:57 PM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

That really doesn’t matter. He was under no obligation to show it in the first place.


152 posted on 01/11/2009 3:27:04 PM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
If they take the case and discover that he’s not a natural born citizen then they should declare him ineligible and call for a new election.

If Obama is found to be ineligible then I suggest that there are plenty of Constitutional provisions in place through the 20th and 25th Amendments to deal with it. I don't know of anything that would allow for a new election.

If they discover that he’s not a natural born citizen but do nothing, then it’s up to We the People.

I just don't see that happening because I don't see men like Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia, or Chief Justice Roberts remaining quiet in the face of a blatant unconstitutional act. If it is proven that Obama is not a natural born citizen then I think the Supreme Court says so, regardless of the consequences. And Obama is removed.

153 posted on 01/11/2009 3:28:10 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: DieHard the Hunter
... 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.

Amen ... it's a done deal. The appointed one, the anointed one, the messiah has flummoxed the electorate ... this sleazy, slickster product of Chicago politics will be your next president. It's a given ... no one has the balls to stop it, not even the supreme court.

154 posted on 01/11/2009 3:28:39 PM PST by BluH2o
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nominal
Thank you for your work.

Did I read it correctly? These were all in the Berg filing in Penn and the expenses were all before the election.

I don't think that shows hundreds of thousands of dollars nor did I see any Obama documents related to any other case or the supreme court filings.

155 posted on 01/11/2009 3:28:59 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: DE88

The cases are not ridiculous, n00b. Obama has forged at least two documents he’s posted on the Internet (the certification fo live birth and his selective service registration card as his ‘proofs’ and has perjured himself on his application tot he Illinois Bar Association. You resorting to the plea of ‘ad homs’ is typical of n00b trolls working to obfuscate for the affirmative action fraud.


156 posted on 01/11/2009 3:30:21 PM PST by MHGinTN (Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe; Drew68

Hey Drew68, if there’s money to be made laughing at this bc foolishness, let me in on it. I’ll make some easy money while trying to save conservatism from those who would make us look like tin foil hat conspiracy theorists.


157 posted on 01/11/2009 3:30:37 PM PST by awake-n-angry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DE88
That really doesn’t matter. He was under no obligation to show it in the first place.

The integrity and virtue in the "transparent" Obama presidency.

158 posted on 01/11/2009 3:30:44 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: cajungirl

There may be a few riots, but they will be taken care of. I recall folks causing a riot and damaging property just because they didn’t like the results of a football game! Or they didn’t like that a criminal got caught red handed by police. Folks who like to riot will riot, but not many Americans want to take part in even a quiet protest and certainly wouldn’t think of taking part in a riot.


159 posted on 01/11/2009 3:31:46 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Yeah... Keep holding your breath.


160 posted on 01/11/2009 3:31:59 PM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Ok, well, I don’t know what the legal remedy would be or if there is precedent, but if he’s constitutionally ineligible then he should not be allowed to serve. Hopefully these things will be worked out.


161 posted on 01/11/2009 3:35:33 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe
It's articles like this one below that make me not trust this man. They always say you can tell a lot about a person by looking at their friends;

You (and others) seem to have mistook my cynicism of this BC conspiracy (and the shady characters involved with it) as a full-on endorsement of Obama. That is not the case.

162 posted on 01/11/2009 3:35:42 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: DE88; Kevmo
But it isn’t going to be solved by the likes of Berg

Berg, Berg, Berg!

Why do you keep discussing Berg?

Nice try, but your template is stale.

163 posted on 01/11/2009 3:39:19 PM PST by fanfan (Update on Constitutional Crisis in Canada.....Click user name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN
What is most amusing is how astonishing ignorant the obots are.

Amusing?

I'm having trouble laughing, as I see my sons future fade.

These people need to be confronted at every turn, not negotiuated with or ignored.

They might be funny if they weren't so dangerous!

164 posted on 01/11/2009 3:42:14 PM PST by airborne (I know it's just my opinion, but I've worked hard on forming it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

Because Berg was the pioneer of this whole charade? What was the subject of the OP? Berg.


165 posted on 01/11/2009 3:45:35 PM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
Ok, well, I don’t know what the legal remedy would be or if there is precedent, but if he’s constitutionally ineligible then he should not be allowed to serve. Hopefully these things will be worked out.

Agreed on both counts. Right or wrong I have enough faith in this country and it's institutions to believe that Obama will not serve if found ineligible. And I have enough hope to believe that at worst he will be a one term president. That's really what we all need to start concentrating on.

166 posted on 01/11/2009 3:47:04 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: DE88

I’ve already said Berg is not the issue.

Are you thick, or obtuse?


167 posted on 01/11/2009 3:52:04 PM PST by fanfan (Update on Constitutional Crisis in Canada.....Click user name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

Whether it is Berg or whomever, it is the same issue. The same lack of evidence. Are you incapable if understanding that fact?


168 posted on 01/11/2009 4:03:19 PM PST by DE88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
Yes, the date says late october on that document.

"I don't think that shows hundreds of thousands of dollars nor did I see any Obama documents related to any other case or the supreme court filings."

Alright.

Here's another related to the same case a little over a week later:

If I happen across any more I'll let you know. I only look at them because of the case law that's put in there by the slickster lawyers. Guessing games about exactly how much was spent I'll leave to others.

169 posted on 01/11/2009 4:08:11 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: nominal

me and my html: http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/berg_ac_obama_resp_emerg_mot.pdf


170 posted on 01/11/2009 4:09:24 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: nominal

My thoery is that after the election he is paying expenses from surplus campaign money. On the docs. I would expect any defense filing to be procedural and not have detail about proof that he is legitimate.


171 posted on 01/11/2009 4:14:00 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

I have given up trying to explain the difference between a “Certification of Live Birth” and a “Certificate of Live Birth” to those who just don’t get it. Even with pictures of one next to the other, they still do not get it. A “Certification” have very little information compared to what a “Certificate” has, and some STILL do not get it!

Barack Hussien Obama aka Barry Soetoro does not want to show his long form birth certificate, and so far has succeeded in keeping it from public view. He wouldn’t dare show his college applications either, and one can only guess why. Perhaps his name was Barry Soetoro from Indonesia, you think? That would mean he dropped his US citizenship as Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. So when did he change his name back from Barry Soetoro to Barack Hussien Obama? Those documents are not to be seen either.


172 posted on 01/11/2009 4:17:04 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

“We will know sometime Monday morning. Here is the link to watch on Monday morning.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html";

Thanks, but the orders posted for Jan. 9 clearly show that only 4 cases were accepted for review, none of them related to BHO’s citizenship:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders/010909zr.pdf

The norm is for cases in which certiorari is granted to be announced in the orders for the Friday these cases are reviewed. All other cases denied review by the Court typically are listed without comment the following Monday.
Thus, unless this has been handled in a non-routine matter, BHO’s citizenship case will AGAIN be listed Monday among the many other cases also denied review by the Court last Friday.

My goal isn’t to burst any bubbles: just to calibrate expectations to more realistic levels.


173 posted on 01/11/2009 4:22:18 PM PST by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Please explain how someone “drops” their US citizenship.


174 posted on 01/11/2009 4:22:49 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

Only the big philly firm isn’t affiliated with the DNC or the Obama campaign like the other 2. And the philly firm wasn’t listed on opensecrets either, IIRC, but the other 2 were. e.g. The Sandler Reiff Young firm was charging ~$35-$45 thousand a month for months, but it doesn’t specify for what, exactly. Somebody knows, but not me.


175 posted on 01/11/2009 4:23:40 PM PST by nominal (Christus dominus. Christus veritas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: nominal

Thanx


176 posted on 01/11/2009 4:24:52 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: DE88

Don’t you hope so n00b.


177 posted on 01/11/2009 4:35:22 PM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: shoutingandpointing
It makes no sense to do what 0 has done and continues to do, UNLESS he—to borrow from his own phrazemology—”HAS SOME SKIN IN THE GAME.”

Notice how many elected GOP folks are talkin about it? NONE

Maybe the skin Obama has, is waiting to burn the GOP with his certificate, if and only if required to do so by a court. Or if some prominent GOP people talk it up.

Remember when other (white) Presidents-elect handed out their birth certificates, in the past? NONE

Can you say racist rightwingers only want certificate from black President elect, although never required in the past?

Prominent GOP figures aren't walking into a fairly obvious political trap.

178 posted on 01/11/2009 4:39:21 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nufsed
Perhaps I should not have used the word “drop/ed”. Actually Obama didn't do it. His step father, Lolo Soetoro, adopted Obama and in doing so Obama became a citizen of Indonesia. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship, Obama’s US citizenship (if he actually was born on US soil) would have been(given up;renounced;suspended;dropped; ?)

Obama as an adult could have gone through the process of legally reestablishing his US citizenship but no one has seen the documents showing that he did give up Indonesian citizenship and reinstate his US citizenship.

179 posted on 01/11/2009 5:24:35 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: conservativegramma

“So there ya go....we have to wait until Monday, the 12th.”

Unfortunately, their modus operandi seems to be to announce successful suits on Friday and unsuccessful ones on Monday.


180 posted on 01/11/2009 5:30:06 PM PST by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

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.


181 posted on 01/11/2009 5:37:03 PM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: FreeManN

“Donofrio was denied cert because it limited the issue to intent of Founders re: NBC.

Berg hasn’t yet been granted because he did not have standing until the demorats foolishly rammed through bo’s certification in Congress. Now Congress has no jurisdiction over bo’s ineligibility. It is in the hands of the Supreme Court and Berg now has standing as do all the people harmed by bo’s 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.


182 posted on 01/11/2009 5:38:28 PM PST by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
"Doing so would make the right wing look foolish."

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.

183 posted on 01/11/2009 5:46:11 PM PST by JustaDumbBlonde (America: Home of the Free Because of the Brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nipfan

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.


184 posted on 01/11/2009 7:21:03 PM PST by FreeManN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

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?


185 posted on 01/11/2009 8:23:22 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: nufsed

the other countries


186 posted on 01/11/2009 8:23:43 PM PST by nufsed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; little jeremiah

But if he’s not a “natural born citizen” then according to the Constitution he’s 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?


187 posted on 01/11/2009 9:12:41 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Only 25 trolls out of 300,000+ constitution supporting posters? Not bad. Good thing we’ve got them outnumbered.


188 posted on 01/11/2009 9:21:56 PM PST by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: fanfan

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?


189 posted on 01/11/2009 9:24:29 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

Let’s just say he who laughs last, laughs best!


190 posted on 01/11/2009 9:28:52 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: DE88
The same lack of evidence.

The lack of evidence is a result of 0bama not producing evidence. The onus is on him, especially with his questionable background.

Troll.

191 posted on 01/12/2009 5:31:59 AM PST by fanfan (Update on Constitutional Crisis in Canada.....Click user name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

PLEASE GO TO PAGE 19 FOR BERG CASE AND READ. THEN EXPLAIN IT TO ME PLEASE! WRIT DENIED BUT NOT THE REST??

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/08ordersofthecourt.html

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.


192 posted on 01/12/2009 7:54:31 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
Definition from the Tech Law Journal

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.

193 posted on 01/12/2009 8:05:14 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: IrishPennant; LucyT; STARWISE; BonRad; Polarik; All

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!


194 posted on 01/12/2009 8:10:40 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth
I think it is a wonderfully positive sign...SCOTUS has only said we will wait on the decision of a writ until after you have explained to us how this case effects "We the People".

The writ is not denied - just denying it before hearing the Amicus Curiae.

195 posted on 01/12/2009 8:22:25 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth; dascallie

I see this same question was posed as its own thread by dascallie.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2163147/posts

I’ll look through the answers there and see if I can add value.


196 posted on 01/12/2009 12:14:07 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Only 25 trolls out of 300,000+ constitution supporting posters? Not bad. Good thing we’ve 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.


197 posted on 01/12/2009 12:44:05 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: EDINVA

No, they don’t 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.


198 posted on 01/12/2009 12:53:15 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

If they take the case and discover that he’s 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


199 posted on 01/12/2009 1:00:45 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Jim Robinson

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


200 posted on 01/12/2009 1:08:38 PM PST by Kevmo ( It's all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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