Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS and the Presidential election
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=121789;title=APFN ^

Posted on 11/21/2008 11:35:11 AM PST by Writesider

Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: bho2008; birthcertificate; certifigate; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; philipberg; scotus; souter
APFN Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:15 72.201.43.207

Supreme court ruling on Obama’s eligibility for presidency By Janitsar on Nov 18th, 2008

Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.

A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter’s granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that “No person except a natural born citizen …

1 posted on 11/21/2008 11:35:11 AM PST by Writesider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Kenyan need not apply! bump


2 posted on 11/21/2008 11:38:16 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

we can only hope


3 posted on 11/21/2008 11:38:18 AM PST by hamburglar (Its wonderful we finally elected a black Pres,but why did it have to be this marxist ass-clown?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Holy cow! I am stunned. I hope it is investigated thoroughly.


4 posted on 11/21/2008 11:38:31 AM PST by gidget7 (Duncan Hunter-Valley Forge Republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider; Beckwith; LucyT; Polarik; Allegra

Berg SCOTUS Review Ping...SOUTER!!!


5 posted on 11/21/2008 11:39:26 AM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider
That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement
6 posted on 11/21/2008 11:39:49 AM PST by SFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Wasn’t it the Donofrio suit from NJ that would be reviewed and not the Berg suit?


7 posted on 11/21/2008 11:39:54 AM PST by SonOfDarkSkies
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider
THE AUDACITY OF TRUTH ABOUT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S UPBRINGING
8 posted on 11/21/2008 11:40:46 AM PST by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gidget7

Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari...


9 posted on 11/21/2008 11:41:50 AM PST by Writesider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Interesting! So, Souter denied Donofrio’s motion (which Thomas scheduled for a Conference), and now Souter agrees that Berg’s lawsuit should be docketed? Something is afoot in the halls of the SCOTUS!

Here’s hoping and praying that the Constitution will prevail and that our Justices have the huevos to make the right decisions here!


10 posted on 11/21/2008 11:42:22 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider; Candor7; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; null and void; pissant; george76; Polarik; ...

Thanks, Candor7.

Ping.


11 posted on 11/21/2008 11:42:44 AM PST by LucyT (.......................Don't go wobbly now.......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

What are you getting at with this? Unless I totally misread your post, Berg is pretty much gone. It is the Donofrio suit that is getting SCOTUS attention.


12 posted on 11/21/2008 11:42:48 AM PST by atlbelle44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

Souter denied Donofrio’s motion - Thomas subsequently scheduled it for review on December 5th after it was resubmitted. This is a separate suit, and a very new development. I’m astounded that the decision came from Souter’s office - perhaps his clerk was sufficiently chastised for his incompetence and misconduct regarding Donofrio’s case (one can only hope...).


13 posted on 11/21/2008 11:44:39 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: atlbelle44

I don’t think Berg’s case has been dismissed yet either.


14 posted on 11/21/2008 11:46:47 AM PST by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

I thought Souter denied Donofrio? But then Thomas had it scheduled for conference. This could be Berg’s case.

Trust, but verify.


15 posted on 11/21/2008 11:47:48 AM PST by Phoenix11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Let’s hope the bring it to commiittee the 5th with Leo’s case.....WOO HOO!


16 posted on 11/21/2008 11:47:53 AM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head; Writesider; LucyT; Fred Nerks; pissant; Calpernia; Polarik; Beckwith; potlatch; ...


17 posted on 11/21/2008 11:48:49 AM PST by PhilDragoo (Hussein: Islamo-Commie from Kenya)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
This is my favorite.


18 posted on 11/21/2008 11:51:09 AM PST by Phoenix11
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Thank you for pointing that out - I’ve been trying to educate people by posting that fact on all the threads I’ve run across today discussing this, or that use the title within the article. It’s really starting to annoy the heck out of me that NO-ONE in the media, or in Washington is pointing this out.

Something I learned earlier today (like 20 minutes ago! LOL) is that the Electoral College votes will not even be counted until January 8, 2009 (apparently the date was moved back from the 6th by a law that went into effect this past October). SO, technically he will not be the “President-Elect” until the vote is certified in JANUARY!

The longer Obama is allowed to get away with using this “self-granted” title, and his MADE-UP “Office of the President-Elect” the worse things will be if he is indeed found to be ineligible.


19 posted on 11/21/2008 11:51:11 AM PST by LibertyRocks ( http://LibertyRocks.wordpress.com ~ Pro-Palin & NObama Gear : http://cafepress.com/NO_ObamaBiden08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pissant

It is not dismissed per se, but Obama, et al, have until 12/1/08 to reply if they choose to do so. The FEC has chosen not to reply, as noted on the SCOTUS site, my guess would be because they believe SCOTUS will dismiss due to “grounds” so therefore they do not feel the need to reply.


20 posted on 11/21/2008 11:51:58 AM PST by atlbelle44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Hmmm... Not really digging the source... any others out there?


21 posted on 11/21/2008 11:57:25 AM PST by AvOrdVet ("Put the wagons in a circle for all the good it'll do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Nothing on the docket yet, but it’s not necessarily updated immediately. If the denial is reversed, and this docket is reviewed ALONG WITH 07-608, this will be sensational news!


No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.

Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.


22 posted on 11/21/2008 11:59:41 AM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Fred Nerks; LucyT; flattorney
I think SOUTER has the liberal agenda in mind, and will have a parallel track case to the Thomas NJ case.

The maneuvering has begun.

23 posted on 11/21/2008 12:00:13 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Oops, 07-608 is a completely different (but very interesting) case.
Don’t recall what the docket number was for the case that Souter rejected but Thomas accepted. Anyway, getting TWO of them actively before SCOTUS would be sensational.


24 posted on 11/21/2008 12:02:22 PM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks for the ping. Wowzers.


25 posted on 11/21/2008 12:21:38 PM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

These are the wto numbers I have in my notes, but OTTOMH can’t remember which is which.

08A407 and 08-4340


26 posted on 11/21/2008 12:31:50 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Could it be they will discuss both on the 5th????

Leo + Berg = 9-0 vote


27 posted on 11/21/2008 12:33:32 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mrs tiggywinkle

bookmark


28 posted on 11/21/2008 12:34:01 PM PST by mrs tiggywinkle (Hosea 10:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Please let the Supreme Court act AFTER Janet Napolitano has resigned as Governor of Arizona! :)


29 posted on 11/21/2008 12:42:45 PM PST by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama
Thanks. 08A407 is what I was looking for.
30 posted on 11/21/2008 12:44:19 PM PST by ctdonath2 (I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; Fred Nerks; Beckwith; LucyT; flattorney
Could it be they will discuss both on the 5th???? Leo + Berg = 9-0 vote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Maybe, but I have a feeling that Thomas will have his conference, and SOuter will have his seperately. If the Leo case goes against Obama, Souter might then bring Berg on for a Cert. Pet. hearing to distinguish or over-rule the Leo case.

Alito needs to rein this in maybe, and this could be showing us that the court is divided even before any hearing.

Hard to tell.

It would seem fine to hear them both at once, but each of them have different legal foundations.

31 posted on 11/21/2008 12:47:15 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

I don’t like it. The Donofrio case is much stronger and if you look at the filing it names three people, one of whom was born in Nicaragua, I think. I would love for them to look at all the cases, but IMO, if they choose just the Berg case it will not be the more compelling brief and that will be the end of it.


32 posted on 11/21/2008 12:58:59 PM PST by this is my country
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Yes they are separate cases, however, they cut to the root of the same problem:

The constitution specifically stated the requirements for the office of the president. The SCOTUS have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately the founding fathers did not establish who would/should vet each candidate to determine eligibility. Leo says SOS, Berg says DNC and FEC, .......

Personally I think the SCOTUS must rule this time on eligibility AND in their ruling establish an order for all candidate to follow in the future.

They may rule....It’s above DNC or SOS pay grade, but it sure in the _____won’t be above the SCOTUS’s pay.

That’s what they were created to do....CHeck and Balance....


33 posted on 11/21/2008 1:05:49 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Oh my! If anything ever comes of this can you imagine! Obama has already resigned his Senate seat so he’d just be out on his ear unless the Gov of IL appointed him back to his seat.


34 posted on 11/21/2008 1:08:05 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
Oh my! If anything ever comes of this can you imagine! Obama has already resigned his Senate seat so he’d just be out on his ear unless the Gov of IL appointed him back to his seat.

If "anything" ever comes of this, the loss of his Senate seat will be the least of his problems. Perhaps improving the view from his window at the Graybar Hotel will be more important to him.

35 posted on 11/21/2008 1:11:27 PM PST by Ancesthntr (An ex-citizen of the Frederation dedicated to stopping the Obamination from becoming President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
IMO Obama will be wearing orange for a while....Fraud, failure to register for the draft, lying on his application to practice law in Illinois.....He'll be lucky if treason charges are not filed for knowingly creating a “constitutional crisis”.
36 posted on 11/21/2008 1:17:09 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba

The only reason to take it is to affirm his citizenship.


37 posted on 11/21/2008 1:28:13 PM PST by Sacajaweau (I'm planting corn...Have to feed my car...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

The best thing that could happen would be if he went totally mad and was driven on a post-marxist rampage to repay all of his enlightened handlers.


38 posted on 11/21/2008 1:45:32 PM PST by Gemsbok (Follow the trail,...,.,.,.,..... I know where it leads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: atlbelle44
Berg is pretty much gone.

No it's not.

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

39 posted on 11/21/2008 1:55:04 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama

I hope you are right. But somehow this whole thing could get very convoluted. We also have new anecdoatal evidence of Obama’s birth in Kenya.

*************

This AUDIO is just in — the Kenyan Ambassador to the United States says that “it is already well known” that Obama was born in Kenya (start listening at 12:00 minutes into audio) );

The Obama File — Latest News

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2135329/posts?page=248#248


40 posted on 11/21/2008 3:11:02 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

Thanks for the heads up, Phil. Oh, my. Seems this is getting some attention. Chief Justice Roberts cannot claim ignorance at this point.


41 posted on 11/21/2008 3:23:20 PM PST by Girlene (Wolverines!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
The only reason to take it is to affirm his citizenship.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Article II of the US COnstitution is not about citizenship.

It requires that any US president be "natural born in the United States"

Its a completely different legal question.

42 posted on 11/21/2008 3:32:35 PM PST by Candor7 (Fascism? All it takes is for good men to say nothing, ( member NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

This is very very interesting. There are enough issues in play that it really should go before the Supreme Court to rule on the various factors so we don’t have this crisis in the future..and god help us that we get it done before Obamanazi can appoint his minions on to the court.


43 posted on 11/21/2008 4:08:28 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Anyone actually go to that website that was linked. There is post about Martial law Bush/Cheney lockdown coming..what kind of site is that?


44 posted on 11/21/2008 4:28:42 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

I guess I am out of the loop because I have never heard of NWO/Martial law agenda.
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=121805;title=APFN


45 posted on 11/21/2008 4:38:52 PM PST by RummyChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Any more news on the Berg case? OH bumpah


46 posted on 11/21/2008 8:02:14 PM PST by hoosiermama (Berg is a liberal democrat. Keyes is a conservative. Obama is bringing us together already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo

Love what you’ve done with the Twelfth Imam, and his COLB. ;o)


47 posted on 11/21/2008 8:52:29 PM PST by dixiechick2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Writesider

Father not a citizen, son is not natural born, even if born in Hawaii or Hell, :

The term “natural born” citizen has a long history in British common law.(38) In fact, a law passed in 1677 law says that “natural born” citizens include people born overseas to British citizens. This usage was undoubtedly known to John Jay, who had children born overseas while he was serving as a diplomat.(39) It also appears to have been employed by the members of the first Congress, who included many of the people who had participated in the Constitutional Convention. To be specific, The Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by this Congress, declared “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens; Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”(40)

This history suggests that the Founding Fathers used the term “natural born” as an expansive definition of citizenship, that is, as a way to make certain that people born overseas to American citizens would have the full rights of other American citizens.(41)

A particularly compelling version of this interpretation, with language that applies, inadvertently, no doubt, to foreign-born adoptees, can be found in an article written almost 100 years ago by Alexander Porter Morse.(42) He writes that by drawing on the term so well known from English law, the Founders were recognizing “the law of hereditary, rather than territorial allegiance.”(43) In other words, they were drawing on the English legal tradition, which protected allegiance to the king by conferring citizenship on all children “whose fathers were natural-born subjects,” regardless of where the children were born.(44) Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46


48 posted on 11/22/2008 12:58:12 AM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

“Interesting! So, Souter denied Donofrio’s motion (which Thomas scheduled for a Conference), and now Souter agrees that Berg’s lawsuit should be docketed? Something is afoot in the halls of the SCOTUS!”
-

Wow!! Holy crapp!! I can’t believe this. This is better than the movies. Quick, grab popcorn and coke!!!


49 posted on 11/22/2008 5:00:45 PM PST by montesquieu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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