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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS message to the American people
Learn USA ^ | 01/20/2009 | Lynn M Stuter

Posted on 01/22/2009 7:56:16 PM PST by FreeAtlanta

SCOTUS message to the American people

January 20, 2009

On Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at the invitation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Also Known As Obama (hereafter known as AKA) and his sidekick, Joseph Biden, paid a visit to the United States Supreme Court, spending the better part of an hour sequestered in secrecy with eight of the nine United States Supreme Court Justices. Justice Alito was not in attendance.

According to an Associated Press release, written by Mark Sherman,

"When employees glimpsed Obama on his way out, a loud cheer went up in a building that exudes decorum."

Can one surmise the Supreme Court ecstatic over the illegitimate ...

The invitation of Chief Justice Roberts, the behind closed door meeting with a man who is the subject of lawsuits coming before the Supreme Court concerning his eligibility to the office of president, was not only inappropriate but leaves questionable the judicial conduct of the justices with whom AKA and Biden met.

Judges are to refrain from appearances of impropriety and partiality; from engaging in activities that compromise the mandate of an independent judiciary. According to the AP piece,

"Eight years ago, President George W. Bush did not visit the court before he took office, but the circumstances were — to put it mildly — unusual.

In December 2000, the court decided the case of Bush v. Gore by a 5-4 vote, ending the legal battle over the contested Florida election and effectively sealing the presidency for Bush."

The circumstances surrounding AKA are just as "unusual", considering the question of eligibility because of his refusal to produce the one document that would prove (or disprove) his eligibility to the office of president — his long form vault copy Hawaii birth certificate — a document that ....

(Excerpt) Read more at learn-usa.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; certifigate; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last
Go to link to read more. She is a good author and researcher.
1 posted on 01/22/2009 7:56:20 PM PST by FreeAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta; LucyT

ping


2 posted on 01/22/2009 8:00:39 PM PST by null and void (We are now in the third day of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta; LucyT

She makes very good points about the fraternizing of the SCOTUS and POTUS.


3 posted on 01/22/2009 8:00:48 PM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Ah... the end game is in sight.

Because of appearances of impropriety, all nine justices will recuse themelves from this case.

-PJ

4 posted on 01/22/2009 8:02:18 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The Supreme Court has become Obama’s and the left’s whipping boys and girl. Sad.


5 posted on 01/22/2009 8:04:33 PM PST by FreeAtlanta (Join the Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Actually, I believe the critical part of the case on the 2000 election was 7 to 2 or 6-3.


6 posted on 01/22/2009 8:07:14 PM PST by Rippin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
When I saw this; I thought immediately “what's going on?”

This is what ethics is all about. Just the appearance of Obama and the Justices amounts to the same thing as committing an act of unethical behavior. How can we believe a President and Justices who do this? Especially when the Justices are denying without comment every case which I consider based on a legitimate question (Is Mr. Obama eligible to run for the POTUS).

It reeks.

7 posted on 01/22/2009 8:12:27 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

Yep. Sounds like his trip to Hawaii to ‘visit his sick grandmother,’ whom he blew off after she died.


8 posted on 01/22/2009 8:16:15 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (The people who cheered when OJ was acquitted are the same ones cheering now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

The man is a fool and it will eventually backfire on him. I just hope we are given time to get the you know what out of the way.


9 posted on 01/22/2009 8:22:26 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freekitty

I thought it was from “The Onion”!


10 posted on 01/22/2009 8:30:07 PM PST by Salvation ( †With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: freekitty
\

Welcome to New Kenya (Africa U.S.A.)

"Where the law of the jungle has replaced the Law of the Land"

Can the SCOTUS not see the Results of this?

If the Constitution is dead, so is our nation!

11 posted on 01/22/2009 8:30:45 PM PST by Texas Fossil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

It’s a great article, although Lynn Stuter might want to be sure that her affairs are in order, as she’ll be one of the first to be rounded up and shipped off to whatever gulag opens up in her region of the USSPR (United States Socialist Peoples Republic).


12 posted on 01/22/2009 8:38:05 PM PST by mkjessup (All *HAIL* the illegal regime of TKU ("The Kenyan Usurper"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void; autumnraine; Calpernia; Fred Nerks; pissant; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; ...
The invitation of Chief Justice Roberts, the behind closed door meeting with a man who is the subject of lawsuits coming before the Supreme Court concerning his eligibility to the office of president, was not only inappropriate but leaves questionable the judicial conduct of the justices with whom AKA and Biden met.

[snip]

At this point, it should be very obvious to the American people, no matter their party affiliation, that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the United States government no longer consider themselves the servant of the people, but their master.

Thank you, 'null and void' and 'autumnraine'.

Ping.

13 posted on 01/22/2009 9:23:10 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Excerpt, Related:

http://drorly.blogspot.com

Orly had to explain to Mr. Bickell when he called her how we citizens got concerned when we saw the information about the cases we have all supported, worked on, and followed disappear from the docket.

Orly also had to explain to Mr. Bickell that many of us citizens are also concerned about the 8 out of 9 justices meeting privately with Mr. Obama. No reporters were allowed. No attorneys were invited on behalf of the Plaintiffs. This causes many of us citizens to question the rules of judicial ethics and causes us to question the impartiality on behalf of the justices.
Quite a number of people have contacted their senators and congressmen because of this meeting and want the justices impeached because the plaintiffs and attorneys weren’t present.


14 posted on 01/22/2009 9:30:16 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta; LucyT
Thanks for posting.

It is a good article.

This inappropriate behavior by the SCOTUS was and is wrong. No amount of excuses and explanations given by some FReepers are acceptable.

Right is right, and this wasn't.

And thanks for the Ping LucyT!

15 posted on 01/22/2009 9:38:41 PM PST by Aurorales
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rippin; All

You are correct .. IT WAS 7 TO 2

The 2nd part was 5 to 4 against the FL State court.


16 posted on 01/22/2009 9:49:44 PM PST by CyberAnt (Michael Yon: "The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

He is a liar.


17 posted on 01/22/2009 9:55:51 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I was looking all over for that too. Than I remember Obambi actually went to the SCOTUS.


18 posted on 01/22/2009 9:57:17 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil

It is beginning to look like it. I am disappointed in the Justices right now.


19 posted on 01/22/2009 9:58:27 PM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

Well .. what if the Chief Justice realized that taking the case before a court where the media would be listening might prove uncomfortable for the country and cause a Constitutional crisis.

What if the Chief Justice told the new President - either produce a birth certificate or you’re out of office.

Wouldn’t anybody want to avoid a Constitutional crisis - especially since 95% of all the blacks in this country would tear it apart if they thought for one moment - the white man - took away their black president.

I just wish a little more common sense would prevail in the world .. it would save a lot of hyperventilating.


20 posted on 01/22/2009 10:02:59 PM PST by CyberAnt (Michael Yon: "The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aurorales

You’re welcome, Aurorales.


21 posted on 01/22/2009 10:29:13 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
"Wouldn’t anybody want to "avoid a Constitutional crisis - especially since 95% of all the blacks in this country would tear it apart if they thought for one moment - the white man - took away their black president."

One, I don't buy that "Blacks" are going to rip the country apart, most are law abiding citizens. To think otherwise is racist.

Two, you don't run a Country by a few peoples self appointed "common sense"..that's called a dictatorship.

Three...if a crisis were to arise, the fault would not be on the citizens who raised questions but on the person who perpetrated the secrecy that gave rise to the questions.

22 posted on 01/22/2009 10:34:27 PM PST by Earthdweller (Socialism makes you feel better about oppressing people.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Very good link!.....I'm involved in schools in a small way....puts a good handle on a bigger picture

Ill be using that as reference in the future.... Thanks!

23 posted on 01/22/2009 11:30:45 PM PST by M-cubed (Why is "Greshams Law" a law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Make that eight of the nine; “Justice Alito was not in attendance.”


24 posted on 01/23/2009 2:18:59 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt

What if I don’t trust “What if”.


25 posted on 01/23/2009 3:10:36 AM PST by autumnraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I am sure someone has talked about this but in the photo of Obama in the Justice chambers did anyone happen to notice the document on the table?

Its size and color?


26 posted on 01/23/2009 3:14:50 AM PST by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller

Not only would there be massive protest and rioting no doubt...by white and blacks who view this as conservatives overturning and election...the GOP and conservatives would be finished for a generation...I’m not worried because the Supreme court will not play politics with this issue.

Those of you who righteously talk about the constitution are fooling yourselves...it’s not about the constitution. Overturning an election would be unconstitutional. It’s about a refusal to accept the election results. Our guy lost period. Better luck in four years. If the court did what you want...ruled on natural born and then retroactively applied it to the 2008 election...now that would be unconstitutional and would destroy our election process.


27 posted on 01/23/2009 4:21:41 AM PST by bronxboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy
“it’s not about the constitution. Overturning an election would be unconstitutional. “

You seem to worry about what is constitutional where you like rather than with respect to actuality. Overturning an election is a duty to the Constitution if the election itself is Constitutionally flawed.

Moving constitutional issues aside in the Obama case; Obama has a duty to the country and those who voted for him, not to mention to himself and his agenda, to end the question of his birth and show the document being so speculated about. It is the adult thing to do. It is the American thing to do. It is the RESPONSABLE thing to do.

28 posted on 01/23/2009 5:07:00 AM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
"It is the adult thing to do. It is the American thing to do. It is the RESPONSABLE thing to do."

Yes....but.....

it's not the Marxist DemocRAT thing to do.

29 posted on 01/23/2009 5:23:13 AM PST by XenaLee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Earthdweller; CyberAnt

>>>Two, you don’t run a Country by a few peoples self appointed “common sense”..that’s called a dictatorship.

also called terrorism.

Excerpt:

Terrorism: the threat of violence against civilians in order to attain goals that are political

Now it comes packaged under ‘political correctness’ too.


30 posted on 01/23/2009 5:54:44 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

The skinny in DC is that Barry’s Real Immigration status is going to be covered up. Official and unofficial DC considers having an unconstitutional President LESS dangerous than the civil unrest throwing his worthless ass out on to the curb where it belongs.

Yea it makes me sick.


31 posted on 01/23/2009 7:59:26 AM PST by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
The invitation of Chief Justice Roberts, the behind closed door meeting with a man who is the subject of lawsuits coming before the Supreme Court concerning his eligibility to the office of president, was not only inappropriate but leaves questionable the judicial conduct of the justices with whom AKA and Biden met.

ex parte communication in an ongoing case is something no judge should allow.

32 posted on 01/23/2009 8:02:44 AM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Danae
At this point, if some states do manage to get laws in place to require the long form certificate to be shown before being on the next election ballot, I suspect enough colusion that a really good forgery will be positioned in Hawaii. It's hard to imagine why it hasn't already happened, unless
33 posted on 01/23/2009 8:07:25 AM PST by FreeAtlanta (Join the Constitution Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
Fear that there is real evidence that he was born overseas and noone wants to risk tampering with the "vault" copies and being hung out to dry

Hawaii officials are guaring the vault BC as if it were the Shroud of Turin The BC is the property of Hawaii, not Obama, so there would have to be collusion with high-level officials to pull a smash and grab.

Obama knows for a fact that he cannot get his grubby little hands on it, and even if he could, its non-authenticity would be a lot easier to spot as a forgery than the image was.

34 posted on 01/23/2009 8:47:08 AM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Danae

We shall see.

One cannot deny a volcano out of existence.


35 posted on 01/23/2009 9:26:20 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 4 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
Under most circumstances, this would be seen as "tampering" with the judge(s). It isn't like can have the judges recuse themselves and refer the case to another court.
36 posted on 01/23/2009 9:36:13 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta

It’s all plausible. What’s more, is anyone in Hawaii in 1961 could have registered a birth. Regardless of where the baby was actually born, he could easily have been born in Kenya and brought to Hawaii and then registered as having been born at a STREET ADDRESS as opposed to a hospital. He would then have a Hawaii Certificate of birth, but still have been born in Kenya. All it would take would be for his mom and a witness to lie. No one would have asked for any proof whats so ever. If there are real records in Kenya, thats relevant! If there are real records of Indonesian citizenship, THAT is relevant. His Immigration status is RELEVANT because if he held citizenship of ANY other country, Britain, Kenya, Indonesia, BY LAW can NOT be a Natural Born Citizen. He is a naturalized Citizen.


37 posted on 01/23/2009 9:37:50 AM PST by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bronxboy

It was a fraudulent election. There is nothing retroactive. We have someone who refuses to prove he is eligble, who raised hundreds of millions from unknown and possibly offshore sources, who has already signed orders that could benefit Islamic terrorists. A polling firm showed terrorism is #3 out of 15 things important to Americans. Faux global warming was last.

If SCOTUS and other courts keep “dissing” the citizenry then the next case should be filed by thousands of military members - retired, active and reserve.

Let the SCOTUS and other courts tell men and women who risk their lives and who take an oath to protect the Constitution that they have NO standing.

The project appears to be already happening with preliminary efforts through the VFW and other veterans groups.


38 posted on 01/23/2009 9:43:19 AM PST by Frantzie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

I agree completely.

It IS tampering with the judges that have cases IN DOCKET against the defendant B. Hussein O.

Whole damn Government REEKS of Obama’s corruption now.


39 posted on 01/23/2009 9:44:03 AM PST by Danae (Amerikan Unity My Ass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Danae
The skinny in DC is that Barry’s Real Immigration status is going to be covered up.

Other elected Presidents have tried coverups - some succeeded...some did not!

Photobucket

40 posted on 01/23/2009 9:57:00 AM PST by IrishPennant (Patriotism is strongest when accompanied by bad politics, loyal FRiends and great whiskey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Danae

If this is true, then the Tree of Liberty is in dire need of watering.

Seems as though all the suits in DC are empty. Either eunuchs or evil.


41 posted on 01/23/2009 9:58:25 AM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
My hope for SCOTUS to do the right thing and hear the cases is dwindling fast. Many think they are waiting for the right case to present itself so there will be no doubt that the full truth will come out.

Wish I could say that I still have great hope in SCOTUS. I still can not imagine Justice Thomas, Alito, Scalia and Roberts letting this issue go unanswered. If Monday brings no comments from SCOTUS on the Orley case, I will know they are turning their backs on our Constitution.

42 posted on 01/23/2009 10:07:55 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Danae

If DC thinks a cover up won’t create civil unrest, they are in for a sad awakening.


43 posted on 01/23/2009 10:08:57 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Danae

I see the “loophole factor” as being involved.

Think of it from a criminal case perspective. Years ago, say a law was passed that nobody ever broke. Nobody even got around to deciding whose job it was to enforce the law. Then finally somebody breaks the law. In a criminal case, while yes, it is the law, few judges are going to convict, or even try, somebody for breaking it, if nobody even has been determined to be in charge of enforcing the law.

But all hope is not lost. While Obama is going to get over—once—at some point the Supreme Court is going to tell congress that they had better legislatively pass an exception, or there is no way in hell they will let Obama run for re-election, if it comes to that. With a congressional exception that they declare him to be naturally born American, no problem.

More importantly, the SCOTUS will give fair warning to the political parties that they had better vet the heck out of future candidates so this doesn’t happen again. That’s what they are doing right now—crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s.

Yes, this time, the courts let the bank robber walk because of a loophole in the law. But don’t do it again, or else.


44 posted on 01/23/2009 10:30:48 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie; All
It was a fraudulent election. There is nothing retroactive. We have someone who refuses to prove he is eligble, who raised hundreds of millions from unknown and possibly offshore sources, who has already signed orders that could benefit Islamic terrorists.

Right. It must be emphasized that John Jay's intent about this is not about presidential elections, per se. It is about making sure that anyone who serves as Commander in Chief is a natural born Citizen and without foreign allegiance.

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.


45 posted on 01/23/2009 10:47:47 AM PST by unspun (PRAY & WORK FOR FREEDOM - investigatingobama.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Rippin

You are correct. It was 7-2.


46 posted on 01/23/2009 10:53:29 AM PST by CaptRon (Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FreeAtlanta
The invitation of Chief Justice Roberts, the behind closed door meeting with a man who is the subject of lawsuits coming before the Supreme Court concerning his eligibility to the office of president, was not only inappropriate but leaves questionable the judicial conduct of the justices with whom AKA and Biden met.

Has everybody forgotten the time that Scalia and Cheney went hunting while the Supreme Court was deliberating a case against Cheney? What is illegal is for a judge to talk to a party about the case.

Seeing as-- unlike Bush v. Gore-- the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear any case against Obama, I'm sure whatever Obama and the Justices talked about, it wasn't the cases against Obama.

47 posted on 01/23/2009 11:00:15 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
What if the Chief Justice told the new President - either produce a birth certificate or you’re out of office.

Meeting with Obama is not illegal. Talking to him about his birth certificate would have been illegal. I'm sure Roberts did not hand Obama the grounds to have Roberts impeached.

48 posted on 01/23/2009 11:02:50 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
They probably think that Conservatives, by their conservative nature, won't riot like liberals would, by their activist nature.

That's why Conservatives stay home while Liberals bus people all over.

-PJ

49 posted on 01/23/2009 11:13:13 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (You can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to overplay their hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

No, conservatives won’t riot like liberals. But they aren’t staying home either.


50 posted on 01/23/2009 11:18:25 AM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last

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