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

Skip to comments.

What did president tell Supreme Court?
wnd ^

Posted on 01/28/2009 6:17:15 AM PST by dascallie

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL What did president tell Supreme Court?

Lawyer in eligibility case seeks records of secret discussions

Posted: January 27, 2009 9:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily

A lawyer whose case challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court says she will demand records of a meeting between the justices and the president.

California lawyer Orly Taitz, who has several cases pending over the issue of Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen, told WND she will take action soon.

Her case was the most recent on which the Supreme Court held a "conference," an off-the-record discussion at which justices discuss whether to take a case. Taitz told WND the justices decided Jan. 23 to deny her case a hearing on its merits.

The result was the same for previous cases brought by Philip Berg, whose information is on his ObamaCrimes.com website, as well as Cort Wrotnowski.

Like Berg's cases, Taitz said hers now reverts to the lower court, where it was pending when her emergency appeals were submitted to the Supreme Court.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: berg; bhoscotus; birthcertificate; birthers; eligibility; ineligible; obama; supremecourt; supremeinjustice; taitz; tyrants
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-144 next last
To: Diogenesis
Was the meeting ex parte?

It's not considered an ex parte meeting if they didn't discuss the case. See the link above to Scalia's opinion on his hunting trip with Cheney.

Who called the meeting?

Chief Justice Roberts.

Was there precedent for the meeting?

Yes-- both Reagan and Clinton met with the Supreme Court shortly before they were sworn in.

81 posted on 01/28/2009 10:59:46 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: USCG SimTech

“The joint chiefs should inform the politicians who has all the guns, jets, ships, and armed forces at their disposal...as they will defend the constitution”

How I wish Petraeus and the rest of the boys would explain to that little girly man up close and personal “how the cow ate the cabbage,” as we used to say in the South. They wouldn’t have to threaten—just give him a reality check.


82 posted on 01/28/2009 11:00:02 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: glennaro
I think it unlikely that Scalia and Thomas -- both adherents to "original intent" -- would vote "no" on all the filings thusfar presented; so, two of the remaining three -- Alito, Roberts and Kennedy -- would have to vote "no" on every filing. Question is: Which two (if not all three)?

There were no recorded dissents from any of the denials.

83 posted on 01/28/2009 11:04:03 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: norton

“the appearance of fraud is proof of fraud”.

I like that better than “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.”

Wasn’t it Justice Potter Stewart who said (in reference to pornography), “I know it when I see it?” I think that’s fairly applicable to what some of us have concluded about Barry’s suspicious behavior concerning his closely past.


84 posted on 01/28/2009 11:04:59 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Scalia hunting previously with Cheney was not an ex parte issue:

Scalia refused, however, to recuse himself in the case of Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, a case dealing with the right of the Vice-President to keep secret the membership of an advisory task force on energy policy. Scalia was asked to recuse because he had previously gone on a hunting trip with various persons including Cheney; Scalia refused, and took the relatively uncommon step of defending his refusal to recuse himself from the case with a public memorandum, focusing on the distinction between official capacity and personal capacity suits, and concluding that because Vice President Cheney was sued in his official capacity, any personal relationship that existed between the two men was irrelevant to Scalia’s ability to render an impartial judgment. “I do not believe my impartiality can reasonably be questioned,” concluded Scalia.[60][not in citation given] Scalia, concurring with the majority, supported Cheney’s position in the case.


85 posted on 01/28/2009 11:05:51 AM PST by Nephi (Like the failed promise of Fascism, masquerading as Capitalism? You're gonna love Marxism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Says the Obama booster.

The Obama booster at work giving probing questions and answers.

86 posted on 01/28/2009 11:10:04 AM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

“You must be an lawyer,,the way you parse words.”

Brother, you took the words right out of my mouth! It strikes me that most of the obfuscators who post on eligibility threads conduct themselves like lawyers, demanding courtroom-level proof of everything. We aren’t in court—common sense rules at FR!!

The fact that so many of them talk and act that way and appear as soon as an eligibilty thread is posted makes me extremely suspicious. If it isn’t an organized effort—or perhaps one person using more than one screen name—it sure looks like one! I’m retired and a very avid follower of the eligibility issue but even I lack the time to be “Johnny on the Spot” like some of these posters!


87 posted on 01/28/2009 11:12:44 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

Don’t you know it. People who believe in that piece of garbage on Factcheck probably believe in the Rathergate Bush National Guard papers too. Curious that the same expert has debunked them both.


88 posted on 01/28/2009 11:17:55 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

The only value in posting junk like that is to prove that one is born every minute!


89 posted on 01/28/2009 11:19:38 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: glennaro

That’s what I’ve been suspecting too. Two, three, even four of the Justices might see the merit of the eligibility cases but the rest are hardheadedly against hearing them. So what can the conservatives do if they feel that way?


90 posted on 01/28/2009 11:22:38 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

It’s quacking and waddling and so far, water seems to run off its back.


91 posted on 01/28/2009 11:27:05 AM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: null and void
It's only a conspiracy if one or more of them takes any action to forward the plans.

Like the plans to create and proffer a bogus Certification of Live Birth:


92 posted on 01/28/2009 11:29:27 AM PST by Polarik ("A forgery created to prove a claim repudiates that claim")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Polarik

My pleasure...


93 posted on 01/28/2009 11:32:29 AM PST by null and void (We are now in day 9 of our national holiday from reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Scanian

There are some on FR who are thinking (hoping!) that possibly SCOTUS is waiting for the right case, and maybe the right time. In a month or two when even more of 0’s shine has dulled (looking more like s**t and less like shinola), and 0bama has been nastier to reporters, more Globe issues have raised doubts, and so on - it might be easier to render a decision against him.

No evidence that I’ve seen, just informed speculation no doubt colored by hopes.


94 posted on 01/28/2009 11:34:22 AM PST by little jeremiah (Leave illusion, come to the truth. Leave the darkness, come to the light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: nbhunt
I'm afraid SCOTUS is in on the fix.

If Justice Thomas is in on the fix then I'm going to cry in my beer. After that I don't know what.

95 posted on 01/28/2009 11:48:57 AM PST by numberonepal (Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: numberonepal

Well, if the story that Justice Thomas snoozed through the inauguration is true, then maybe he was sending constitutionalists a message. He is the last person I’d suspect of selling out!


96 posted on 01/28/2009 11:53:59 AM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: dmz
It would take some cold, hard damning facts before I would consider Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Alito (who was absent) would be in on any type of fix. It would have to be a cold day in hell when I was reading those facts.

It is valid to question Obama’s eligibility for office. Surprising little is known about the man who just today invoked the “sunlight is the best dininfectant” line. I have many questions about Obama’s past.

But assuming the fix is in on the SCOTUS based on nothing more than a meeting (even if unprecedented) is what feeds stereotype of conservatives being right wing nuts. It is the type of thing which keeps many from taking us seriously.

Not slamming anyone else for what they believe, just my opinion.

97 posted on 01/28/2009 11:56:20 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

But assuming the fix is in on the SCOTUS based on nothing more than a meeting (even if unprecedented) is what feeds stereotype of conservatives being right wing nuts. It is the type of thing which keeps many from taking us seriously.
______

And the fact that the meeting was not unprecedented should give the conspiracy theorists a bit of a pause, but it doesn’t seem to do so.


98 posted on 01/28/2009 12:02:09 PM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: dmz

You said — “You have some proof that they met legally for illegal purposes or illegally met for legal purposes? Your proof of a conspiracy requires proof of the statement above. And we have none.”

Now, come on..., don’t start talking common sense to the Obama Derangement Syndrome mentality... :-)


99 posted on 01/28/2009 12:10:32 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mlo

You said — “Nonsense. He won an election.”

Ummmm..., it was rigged; the Republicans really won! [ /Obama Derangement Syndrome off]


100 posted on 01/28/2009 12:13:23 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-144 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