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

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 01/07/2009 1:48:09 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2160466/posts



Skip to comments.

Breaking: Dr. Orly v Obama (Lightfoot v Bowen) - Accepted for Conference
US Supreme Court ^ | 1/7/08 | US Supreme Court

Posted on 01/07/2009 12:59:18 PM PST by BP2

No. 08A524
Title:

Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
v.
Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California

  Case Nos.: (S168690)

~~~Date~~~  ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; constitution; eligibility; inauguration; obama; obamacon; scotus

Interesting... The Chief Justice didn't have to accept it...


1 posted on 01/07/2009 12:59:19 PM PST by BP2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BP2

Which means what, exactly?...........


2 posted on 01/07/2009 1:01:13 PM PST by Red Badger (I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

3 posted on 01/07/2009 1:02:06 PM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Ping!


4 posted on 01/07/2009 1:02:51 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

3 days after inauguration.


5 posted on 01/07/2009 1:03:26 PM PST by Cooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009

After the fact there....


6 posted on 01/07/2009 1:04:41 PM PST by Sybeck1 (Million Minuteman March (Spring 2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Based on past history (especially with Donofrio's docket), sometimes the electronic docket interface isn't immediately, nor in parallel, updated with reality.

But, who knows -- maybe your observation is correct.

Either way, it's going to Conference.

-Phil

7 posted on 01/07/2009 1:05:44 PM PST by Phil_GA (http://www.therightsideoflife.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


8 posted on 01/07/2009 1:08:07 PM PST by 09Patriot (I am a MILITANT Conservative, compassionate conservatism got us NOWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Hopefully it means that Obama will have to show his BC soon.


9 posted on 01/07/2009 1:08:25 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BP2
Is this the time to bombard the SCOTUS with pleas for them to make the Bamster produce a COLB?

A campaign started by two local radio jocks here in CA has caused the Governator to veto a fraudulent tax hike the dems were trying to impose.

10 posted on 01/07/2009 1:11:22 PM PST by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2
It's one thing to rule a President-Elect ineligible.

It's a very different matter for one branch of Government to rule the head of another branch invalid.

11 posted on 01/07/2009 1:14:41 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2

So now Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas has referred to Conference. That leaves Alito as the only unknown.
Kennedy has denied more than once.


12 posted on 01/07/2009 1:14:49 PM PST by LongIslandConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Instead of filing with another Justice, Dr. Orly solicited the Chief Justice to see what his opinion of it was. All other Justices had been "queried" on their stance of such a challenge and had accepted, or rejected.

This was the first time in the series of lawsuits against Obama that Chief Justice Roberts was directly solicited. And he accepted it.

Three days after Inauguration, but perhaps he's also waiting for a true "Cause of Action" -- be that the counting of the Electoral Votes OR the Inauguration itself.

The Inauguration date is the only date noted in the Constitution tied to the new POTUS. January 6th is under USC Title 3, changed to Jan 8 by Joint Resolution back in October 2008. I believe all other dates are set by USC 3, as well.


13 posted on 01/07/2009 1:15:09 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BP2

14 posted on 01/07/2009 1:15:24 PM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That Obama being impeached, Biden becomes prezident and appoints Hillary as VP. BAHAHAHAHAh


15 posted on 01/07/2009 1:15:29 PM PST by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BP2
As with all of these cases that have been sent to conference... This was sent there so it could be denied for good. It's just a way of making sure it doesn't come back.

If the CJ had not accepted it, it could have been resubmitted to another judge. But an after-conference denial is kind of the end of the line.

16 posted on 01/07/2009 1:15:41 PM PST by Semper911 (When you want to rob Peter to pay Paul, you'll always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
It's a very different matter for one branch of Government to rule the head of another branch invalid.

He's not "head" of anything yet.

17 posted on 01/07/2009 1:16:39 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court

What does this mean... it was just added.?


18 posted on 01/07/2009 1:18:01 PM PST by Sorry screen name in use
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
He's not "head" of anything yet.

He will be when they conference.

19 posted on 01/07/2009 1:19:19 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

He’s Head of the Office of President-Elect!.............


20 posted on 01/07/2009 1:19:54 PM PST by Red Badger (I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

Roberts didn’t have to accept it. In the Berg case Kennedy denied an application on the second submittal after Souter denied it. Then it was sent to Scalia on the 3rd try and he referred it.


21 posted on 01/07/2009 1:20:07 PM PST by LongIslandConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Semper911

If these cases keep coming back perhaps it’s time for the SCOTUS to start wondering why.


22 posted on 01/07/2009 1:20:35 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: Sorry screen name in use
Yes, it was just added, in the last 90 minutes.

It stems from this, shortly after Christmas:

Please write and call the Supreme Court, demand a decision from Chief Justice Roberts ASAP, today

As you know, my petition for stay in Lightfoot v Bowen is in front of Chief Justice Roberts. I Fed Exed it on Monday, Dec 22, and it was received and signed for on Dec 23rd. I was told by the clerk responsible for stays, Mr. Danny Bickle, that they couldn't find the package for A WEEK, even though it was signed for. On the 29th it was given to Chief Justice Roberts. Typically decisions on stay are issued within a couple of days. It has been a week since Chief Justice Roberts officially received the package and 2 weeks since it was actually received by the Supreme Court, and there is no decision yet from Roberts. Maybe it is his strategy to simply sit on it indefinetely, trying to avoid showing to 320 million American citizens where does he really stand in regards to the Constitution of this country: is he willing to hear an oral argument in defense of the Constitution or is he willing to let it be torn apart. Chief Justice Roberts owes us an answer and he owes it immediately, when a petition for an emergency stay is concerned. By sitting on it and refusing to issue a decision, he is de facto allowing one to be confirmed and inaugurated president of the country by fraud, he is allowing a mockery of the Constituion.

24 posted on 01/07/2009 1:22:06 PM PST by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TruthWillWin
If these cases keep coming back perhaps it’s time for the SCOTUS to start wondering why.

Just because a fly keeps buzzing back repeatedly, doesn't mean it's not just a nuisance.

25 posted on 01/07/2009 1:23:52 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BP2

If a party wants the Supreme Court to grant a stay, they must make that motion to a specific Justice (there is one assigned to each region of the country). If that Justice denies the stay, the party can make the motion again to any other Justice they want. That second Justice will usually then refer the motion to the full Court so it can be denied definitively; otherwise, the party seeking a stay can keep making the motion to one Justice after another. Both Berg’s and Donofrio’s cases sought a stay of the electoral college vote; each motion was denied by the assigned Justice. Berg and Donofrio each made the same motion to a second Justice, that Justice assigned it to the conference, and the motions were denied 0-9, with no comment and no dissent. I anticipate that the same thing will happen this time.


26 posted on 01/07/2009 1:26:09 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BP2
3 days AFTER the inauguration. Does anyone think they'll hand the Presidency to Joe Biden? This is lunacy.
27 posted on 01/07/2009 1:28:10 PM PST by NonValueAdded (once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than [race] for despising them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

True. They need to at least ask for Obama to provide his BC, that would kill it. That’s unless his BC says he was born in Kenya, if so then the fun just begins. Forgery/Fraud/Coverup charges. Makes Nixon look like a honor boy scout.


28 posted on 01/07/2009 1:29:18 PM PST by TruthWillWin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
He’s Head of the Office of President-Elect!.............

I refer to it as the Department of President Elect, or DoPE for short.

29 posted on 01/07/2009 1:33:39 PM PST by IYAS9YAS (Hey Obama, why lawyer up when you can pony up? Show us your vault copy BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BP2

self-ping


30 posted on 01/07/2009 1:33:58 PM PST by bushwon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS

So, he’s a DOPE Head?.........


31 posted on 01/07/2009 1:34:20 PM PST by Red Badger (I was sad because I had no shoes to throw, until I met a reporter who had no feet.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That office exists ONLY in the mind of “The One”!


32 posted on 01/07/2009 1:39:45 PM PST by WellyP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dblshot
That Obama being impeached, Biden becomes prezident and appoints Hillary as VP.

Maybe that is the accepted plan. He gets his "historic" first, then resigns when it is "discovered" that he can't really be president. I say we prosecute him and all those who know he couldn't be president.

33 posted on 01/07/2009 1:40:44 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Join the Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BP2; LucyT

Ping.


34 posted on 01/07/2009 1:40:58 PM PST by fanfan (Update on Constitutional Crisis in Canada.....Click user name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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