Posted on 12/15/2008 7:29:47 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan
The orders list for 12/15/2008 shows Wrotnowski's request for stay as denied.
unsurprisingly and very much deservingly
***Unsurprising, yes I can see that. Deservingly... that attitude is what makes you a CoLB Troll. What are you doing on a constitutionalist website deriding constitutionalists over a constitutional issue? Pinging lj for a Troll to add to his new CertifiGate Troll List.
Just hours before the “proof” that RFK was a “false” prophet, first page of Google after adding 1 + 1:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Robert+F.+Kennedy+Illuminati
G.W. Bush is not a conservative.
WE were sold a false bill of goods on that one.
Donofrio's and Wrotnowski's arguments are not Constitutional in even the slightest definition. That a right-leaning USSC is laughing these arguments out of court as quickly as they are filed tends to validate my viewpoint.
So what are you doing on a constitutionalist website pushing unconstitutional arguments that have never been a part of U.S. legal tradition? Or do you believe in the "living, breathing" Constitution?
The problem is...
—
Bush and the Bush Administration wants nothing to do with this issue, Vice President Cheney wants nothing to do or say about this issue, McCain and his previous campaign wants nothing to do with this issue, Governor Palin wants nothing to do with this issue and is looking forward to working with Obama, the Republican Party wants nothing to do with this issue, even Rush Limbaugh wants nothing to do with this issue, many other conservative websites want nothing to do with this issue, many here on Free Republic want nothing to do with this issue — and (of course) — the Democrats want nothing to do with this issue, along with Obama wanting nothing to do with this issue. Even the FBI wants nothing to do with it...
—
When you can get none of your own people in positions of authority to do something about the issue, you are *dead in the water*... And that’s the way it is right now...
And now — today — US Supreme Court — “Denied...” (with *no comment*)
Of course it’s a Constitutional issue. The cases address the definition of “natural born citizen”, which we are finding has a gray area (non-citizen parents). We need SCOTUS to clarify that definition.
If the cases were “being laughed out of court”, they wouldn’t be making it to closed-chamber sessions.
Cases denied are usually denied without comment.
At least two Supreme Court judges DO want something to do with it, as they accepted the cases for consideration. That’s saying something positive.
You said — “At least two Supreme Court judges DO want something to do with it, as they accepted the cases for consideration. That’s saying something positive.”
What I’ve seen indicated about *that* (what you just said) was that it was a “methodology” that the Supreme Court adopted to prevent the case from being resubmitted to other justices, again and again. So, they’ve devised this as a way to “put it down” and out of the way... LOL...
Perhaps you would care to inform us as to the proper expectations regarding the enforcement of the requirements for eligibility to be President of the U.S.?
Is it simply sufficient that the media accept Obama? Is the certification of Congress sufficient? Who, if anyone, does have standing to require enforcement?
I was thinking of adding to the list, will do! Got list on my desktop.
The Constitution couldn't be much clearer about this. Born in America? Natural born. Not much to clarify.
You mean like anchor babies? The Founders would have allowed an anchor baby to run? Or someone with dual citizenship?
Interesting theory, but we have no validation of it because the court does not comment officially on the rejections.
Methinks many big names are staying away from this because it could be hugely embarassing if, after all, there is no disqualifying factor. Those pursuing the case are playing poker, trying to call O’s bluff and losing big if he’s got a good hand after all. The big names play chess, only playing when they see ALL the pieces and possible moves.
You said — “Interesting theory, but we have no validation of it because the court does not comment officially on the rejections.”
Of course they don’t comment. They don’t want to (tradition or not)... LOL...
But, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a “brain surgeon” ... LOL..) to see that these same Supreme Court justices see all these cases “coming down the pike” and will end up at their desks. And they know that these people filing them are not going to take “no” for an answer easily. And these same justices can see *relentless* requests to one justice and then to another justice and so on.
So, they most likely said, “We’ve got to kill these things as they come in, so they don’t keep getting resurrected before another justice and another justice and so on. So, let’s take it to hearing and then issue our denial. This puts an end to it!”
It definitely appears that the justices are not going to take it, because it’s a “political matter” and the “voters spoke” and they’re not going to interfere with an election....
Another part of the Constitution does raise the question of whether “anchor babies” are not US citizens after all. Coupled with the issue of O’s father’s citizenship, it’s possible that SCOTUS could radically alter the “born here = citizen” rule.
Complicating this, the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted a President to be wholly a US citizen - and apparently did not consider/predict the notion of “dual citizenship”, which a child of mixed-citizenship parents is subject to. Presumably the authors of the Consitution - going so far as to differentiate natural_ized_ citizens being eligible for Congress but not President - would be aghast at the notion of a President who is not just a US citizen, but also a subject of (say) Kenya and Indonesia.
It’s not a trival matter.
They could also just ignore the cases. Taking them into conference isn’t necessarily going to stop the influx of persistence; to the contrary, it would encourage them! Ignoring them outright is the appropriate way to say “that issue isn’t going anywhere”. Taking it into conference says “someone thinks there is _some_ merit, we just have to get it re-worded right to satisfy 4 judges”. As 2 separate judges have distributed separate (but substantially similiar) cases for conference, that means at least 2 Supreme Court judges think the issue is worth at least talking over. 2 have rejected those cases. That leaves 5 more to make submissions to, probing to see which judges are showing sympathy on the issue. ...that’s rather encouraging actually, as opposed to all such cases being rejected outright, period.
...So this issue cannot be truly entertained by SCOTUS until the electoral votes are counted in January?
I guess the bashing by trolls will continue until then... they must be vindicated after all.
I find it quite interesting that they are so passionate in their quest to shut up these threads. The Supreme Court has looked at these cases, if it were completely tin foil they would have not given them a second glance.
Don't ya love the trolls? They aren't any smarter or nicer than the people who trolled Terri Schiavo threads. Some things never change.
For conservatives they certainly seem to be rooting awfully hard for ‘the ONE’.
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.