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 ...
The Constitution is a Contract. It's terms mean what they meant when the contract was written, unless amended as provided for in the contract. It's up to the Courts to determine those meanings. Laws could define them for later contracts, but not retroactively for the contract that is the Constitution.
To illustrate this, would you approve of the Congress redefining "arms", "keep" or "bear" or even "infringe" as applied to the prohibition of the Second Amendment?
Strict Constructionists also insist on original *meaning*, not necessarily original intent.
I woulda thought it was you. Tweren’t me.
MHGinTN seems to be on the ball with that kind of stuff.
Roger that;
I keep a good memory of the past and current events.
Marking my place, so I can try to comprehend this in the morning.
Or how about that history of the Cold War as it relates to the US USSR Afghanistan and Pakistan?
But but but the NYT article made it seem like a little bit o' Heaven!
You clearly must've had a lot invested in the discredited "U.S. travel to Pakistan was banned" argument. The 1981 New York Times travel article with contact and visa information is sufficient evidence that Pakistan was not off-limits. Now do you have anything besides blog entries that say different?
This far, not one single person has cited such a law.
I wonder why that is?
There is no conflict between them being arbitrary and being real life processes. If they are not arbitrary, then they must be in either the Constitution or the statute law, although even statute law could be arbitrary, like various age limits for drinking, driving, etc. If they are merely the rules of the Court, the Court could, change or waive them if they wishwsm and probably have in the past.
I suspect you are using a different defintion of arbitary than hoosiermama. Here are four from the American Heritage dictionary:
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
I believe she was using #3 or close to that, while you seem to be using something more like #1, with emphasis on whim and impluse.
OF COURSE!!!!!!
The New York Times planted this travel article in 1981 because they knew that 27 years later, Obama would need an alibi to cover for the time he traveled to Pakistani terrorist camps on his Indonesian passport.
Yes! This all makes sense now!
May not be about race to you and me. But to the politically correct capons in DC, everything is about race.
Standing is sometimes used to move a case up the ladder. It allows the judge to move be appealed without giving comment (biasing it) or being overruled. (They like to keep that percentage down).....
OTOH It also can be that there is NO damage, therefore no standing. In that case the SCOTUS would have immediately dismissed the case, not scheduled it for conference.
The disappointment that many felt with Leo and COrt was because they relied on the burden being placed on the SoS. The court would have had to rule with the SoS, no where are they assigned the responsibilty to vet the candidates. We are expecting them to issue comment when they issue their final order.
That LOL NYT LOL LOL LOL!
Different case. Friday was the first Berg conferance, the second one is this coming Friday, the 16th. Taitz's case is scheduled for 1/23.
Yes. The selfsame NYT that to this day can’t bring itself to use the words muslim and terrorist in the same article.
That NYT.
They lied about Hitler in the 30’s, Stalin in the 40’s, McCarthy in the 50’s, Vietnam in the 60’s, Nixon in the 70’s, Star Wars in the 80’s, Clinton in the 90’s, and Dubya in the 00’s
Since they have a consistent generations long track record of always puffing up America’ enemies and denigrating it’s friends, I have extreme difficulty believe a puff piece about Pakistan, or any of the other anti-American sh!t holes it has embraced over the decades.
In high school we read from eight different newspapers each day. It was rated the most liberal, least reliable of all. I’ve often wondered why people continued to buy it.
Same kind of tactics the tootyfruityrudybots would use just before they finally got under JimRob’s skin and he opened the bugzapper thread. We’re only a few days from this thing getting decided, so it’s too late for JimRob to undue the damage they’ve done to FR.
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.