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.
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 …
Kenyan need not apply! bump
we can only hope
Holy cow! I am stunned. I hope it is investigated thoroughly.
Berg SCOTUS Review Ping...SOUTER!!!
Wasn’t it the Donofrio suit from NJ that would be reviewed and not the Berg suit?
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...
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!
Thanks, Candor7.
Ping.
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.
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...).
I don’t think Berg’s case has been dismissed yet either.
I thought Souter denied Donofrio? But then Thomas had it scheduled for conference. This could be Berg’s case.
Trust, but verify.
Let’s hope the bring it to commiittee the 5th with Leo’s case.....WOO HOO!
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.
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.
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.