Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
“No.
The last thing I want is a vice-president Hillary!™...”
It would save you 2 Guinness. :)
Would it? I’m pretty sure you’ve won the bet.
Either way we’re both gonna need Guinness...
Cuba.
Proof in writing will suffice.
Show me and prove me wrong.
That is all I ask.
Good research.
Now could you find the name of the law or State Department Directive that made it illegal for Americans to enter Pakistan?
No non-mohhamedan is allowed in mecca or medina.
Was Pakistan blocking US non-mohhamedan or non-diplomatic visas during it’s own internal difficulties?
I know: it’s null and void.
*ouch*
No.
It’s on you to prove or disprove it.
By law from Pakistan or from the US State State Dept.
You need to disprove it. (in writing)
Show me.
If he doesn’t peacefully step down and tries to stir up the masses, he may be facing something like treason.
As am I. trumandogz assumes that only the US can keep Americans out of a foreign country.
Rather jingoistic of him, doncha think?
Thanks for that post. I wish he’d join Free Republic. I’d have a ton of questions.
for later.
I just want to see the law or the ban or whatever. Many reports state that travel to US citizens was verboten at that time, The only evidence to the contrary was posted by Trumandogz by a NYTimes article.
The candidates who actually received electoral votes have more standing to show damages than candidates who received no electoral votes.
***I agree, but it doesn’t matter. The candidate just has to have some standing. Apparently you nor I have any standing.
McCain-Palin were the only other candidates to receive Electoral Votes, 173 electoral votes to be exact.
***POTO
A case can only be “kicked up” to the Supreme Court if it has been ruled upon at a lower court level.
***And your point is?
The Supreme Court is an appeals court, the highest appeals court.
***POTO
Almost no cases originate at the Supreme Court except for disputes between state governments or between a state and the federal government.
***And your point is?
The Supreme Court favors taking cases from the US Courts of Appeals.
***And yet, they’ve jumped in on past instances when it suited them.
Phillip Berg made a tactical mistake by skipping the US Court of Appeals
***I agree. But we are pretty far afield from what we were originally talking about. What is the point of all this obfuscation?
which is most likely why his case has been denied twice already at the US Supreme Court level.
***Possibly. Perhaps you can explain why his case has been referred for conference twice. I have never heard of that before, and all the resident FR constitutional scholars generate crickets when asked how many other cases this has happened with.
The Supremes like utilizing “the chain of command” and the US Court of Appeals is the next highest court to the Supreme Court.
***Back to our regularly scheduled program.
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.