Skip to comments.Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)
Posted on 11/08/2010 12:57:34 PM PST by rxsid
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010
Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
"Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)"
does that mean the full court is going to discuss granting cert?
They’re just deciding how to say, “No”, again, with a straight face.
Yes, and if it goes further, Obama and the Dems would be laying bricks.
When will we find out?
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.
What does this really mean? You said above 4 votes. Did 4 of the Standing court justices vote to move it to Conference status?
Does that mean it goes on a list for a future hearing? Please explain to us Tea Party un-enlightended folks.
Obama has amended the US Constitution without the legal process.
The answer is no for cases to go to conference.
It takes four of the SCOTUS critters to vote yes to hear the case.
The days grow short.
This is starting to get interesting...
What happens if 2 of the SCOTUS justices have to recuse themselves because they were themselves appointed by the defendant in question?
Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?
So the waiver of right to respond means the federal government, or in this case, Barry’s lawyers, have granted every statement of fact in the filing, and has no right to counter any statement within it, nor counter the centori.
I’m seeing a split decision here, with the court likely finding that the option of citizenship is one that has to be exercised, and one’s American citizenship can’t be revoked by an outside authority, nor does having an option revoke citizenship. A joined majority will further declare that the SCOTUS is not the arbritor of presidential elections and toss the whole bomb into the lap of Congress.
A minority will likely feel that this is entirely a waste of time, and another minority will think that it is up to the Electoral College to verify documents before voting for president, and yet another minority (mixed) will encourage the release of the documents.
Every cert. petition filed with the Court is listed for a conference. There are often 100 or more cases listed for each conference. Not all are actually discussed; prior to the conference, each Justice privately circulates a list of cases that they think should be discussed. If a case is not listed by any of the 9 justices, it is not discussed and an order comes down saying the petition for cert. is denied. Those lists are not made public, so we have no way to know if a case is actually "discussed."
Not the way it works at the SCOTUS level. Filing an opposition is optional. Most petitions are not opposed (because only a tiny percentage are granted). If the Court is considering granting certiorari, and the respondent didn't file opposition, the Court will request a response before taking a vote.
Laying bricks like a hen lays eggs would serve them right, but I can also see some Dems cast out and bricklaying for the unions as ex-cons.
I don’t know if it would change the 4 votes needed if 2 of the SCOTUS jurists recuse themselves from the case. And I don’t think Sotomayor or Kagan can be made to remove themselves from the case.
If the Court grants certiorari, or requests that the Government respond to the Petition (which means they are thinking of possibly granting certiorari) that order will come down on November 23. If cert. is denied, that will be on a long list of orders issued the following MOnday.
And you can bet they won’t!
At the SCOTUS level, each Justice makes the decision to recuse or not for himself/herself; there is no review by the rest of the Court.
Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?
Only via impeachment.
Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?"
A great question. Definitely uncharted territory!
I would think that the 2 would be asked to recuse themselves, if they didn't do so voluntarily. Recall, as of 10/4/10, Kagan had already recused herself from 25 of the (then) 51 cases the court had accepted up till then due to a conflict of interest type situation.
IF they were recused, that would leave a strong balance of "conservative" leaning justices of 4, the "swing" vote with Kennedy who said he wasn't leaving the bench til Barry was out of office and then 2 "lib" justices.
The nomination of the 2 justices by the usurper may ultimately turn out to work against him.
If two must recluse themselves, do they still need four votes or just three? Is it a majority of the justices qualified or the entire court?
This case was filed before Obama was inaugurated. Was Kagan the person who processed the early stages of this case for the defendants?
I don’t know how she could NOT recuse herself.
If SCOTUS decides at the end of Nov to hear this case, can they stretch it out so it’s not decided until after the House is controlled by Repubs?
I just can’t get it out of my mind that Soros could have SCOTUS by the necks somehow and SCOTUS may thus refuse to ever hear a case rather than have to rule wrongly and set precedent with the decision.
Agreed. Seems like you, me, mlo, and kevmo hashed out the insignificance of the phrase “Distributed for Conference” in great detail back during Donofrio’s and Wrotnoski’s pending cases.
No matter how many recusals there are, four votes are needed to grant cert. If cert. is granted, a majority of the sitting judges is all that is needed for a decision (e.g., if there are 2 recusals, 4 justices are a majority).
Maybe public pressure could be brought to bear on Kagan and Sotomayor. Can Kerchner himself do anything to suggest that they need to recuse themselves? I was just looking at http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/comments-from-cdr-kerchner-re-kagan-now.html where they’re saying there isn’t just an APPEARANCE of a conflict, there is actually a clear-cut financial and personal interest.
the same Elena Kagan nominated by the commander in chief to be the next justice on the U.S. Supreme Court has actually been playing a role for some time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House.
Heres the connection. Kagan served as solicitor general of the United States from March 2009 until May of this year. In that role, she legally represented the U.S. government in numerous cases coming before the Supreme Court. A simple search of the high courts own website reveals Kagans name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues.
The fact Kagan handled these cases and is now Obamas first choice for the high court is raising some eyebrows. She was the solicitor general for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural-born citizenship, notes WND reader Carl Jorgensen of Farmingdale, N.J. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course, Jorgensen continued. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesnt it?
To say that she would have a major conflict of interest in any case regarding Barry's eligibility is a serious understatement.
It would be difficult for most clear thinking people to understand how Sotomayor could possible stay on such a case either...since her being there is a direct result of being nominated by the usurper himself.
It still takes 4 votes.
Can they be forced to recuse themselves? Can ethics charges be brought up if they refuse?
No and no.
Very misleading the way that is worded. The Solicitor General's office never filed anything with the Supreme Court in any Obama eligibility case. Kagan's name "comes up" on the website only in the sense that the petitioners served their papers on the Soliciitor General's office, as they were required to do, but neither Kagan nor anyone in her her office ever responded.
Would the same people that are talking about Chief Justice Roberts’ investments being grounds for impeachment also consider these 2 gals’ failure to recuse themselves in a case with such a blatant, direct financial and personal conflict of interest impeachable offenses?
If Kagan actually carried out the government’s defense in the beginning stages of this very case, it would be a situation where somebody decides their own case. That’s how blatant it would be. If that’s not an impeachable offense, what would be?
I saw an interview with Justice Thomas and he mentioned that the court kept finding excuses to avoid hearing and deciding this issue.
Maybe this is the one.....
Wow. This particular case is against the US government. I wasn’t aware of the job description of the Solicitor General, but Wikipedia says this:
“The Solicitor General determines the legal position that the United States will take in the Supreme Court. In addition to supervising and conducting cases in which the government is a party, the Solicitor General’s office also files amicus curiae briefs in cases in which the federal government has a significant interest in the legal issue. The Solicitor General’s office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party, and also argues in most of the cases in which the government has filed an amicus brief. In the federal courts of appeals, the Office of the Solicitor General reviews cases decided against the United States and determines whether the government will seek review in the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General’s office also reviews cases decided against the United States in the federal district courts and approves every case in which the government files an appeal.”
Seems to me that Kagan has a conflict of interest because she would have had (or did have?) the job of representing the US government AND because she only has her position on SCOTUS because Obama was allowed to illegally take office.
That’s 2 major conflicts of interest/ potential ethics violations if she doesn’t recuse herself, that would be just cause for potential discipline or disbarment of a regular judge. If I’m understanding correctly. Seems like the federal code of judicial ethics had something about that... Can’t remember whether it excluded SCOTUS justices from that Code of Ethics...
Since the case hasn't gotten before the Supreme Court yet then the Solicitor General wouldn't have been involved.
Thats how blatant it would be. If thats not an impeachable offense, what would be?
All your wishful thinking won't change the fact that 4 justices still have to agree to hear the case. Kagan or no Kagan.
what about the justices being slighted by Obummer at the State of the Union and they were forced to hear him criticize themselves. Will this have any bearing on the Courts decision. Does anyone know what happened about the previous president that was accussed of being born in Canada, and how did that work out. I cannot remember the name of the president, coolidge, harding or something like that from New York, ohio. there was a controvesy but it was poo pooped. the Congress may get this critter yet. The courts may say no standing. Really why no standing when the American People have elected the people whom appoint and confirm these idiots to the positions. they say we cannot remove them because of their lifelong appointments. I disagree - an appointment can be ended at the discretion of the people of America not the ignoramus’; that think they are infallible. Damn the Pope is not infallible, neither is Billy Graham. Both of these can be removed easily by the people.
Similar cases have made it this far before and no further. Maybe Justice Thomas is a yes vote, maybe not. Regardless it takes four to hear it.
The former president whom had a so called conflict of where he was born was Chester A Arthur 1881 - 1885. he was born in Vermont, some idiot claimed he was born in Ireland and others claimed he was born in Canada. his parents had immigrated from Canada. It was known that his grandmother was part Indian. Now wait a minute Obama is not the first president to be a minority it is Chester A. Arthur. Artur died in 1886 of kidney disease, he was not healthy throughout his administration. interesting. he was a republican
It appears that the public "at large" was completely unaware of his eligibility problems when he was running for office as V.P., only to take office when the POTUS, James A. Garfield was killed in office.
Interestingly, before his death, Arthur ordered his papers (presumably that would show his father was not a citizen when he, C.A., was born) burned. [link to a PDF].
Chester Arthur was a usurper, like Barry, because his father was a British subject when he was born.
Oh how history repeats itself.
Should Kagan and Sotomayor recuse themselves, in your opinion? Why or why not?
No, because appointment to the court is not grounds for recusing. Should Alito or Scalia or Thomas recuse themselves because they're Republicans and therefore their impartiality could be called into question by the liberals?
Being appointed by a generic “Republican” is totally different than being appointed by the defendant in the case you’re hearing.
You don’t see the difference there? You don’t see the financial and personal conflict of interest for both Kagan and Sotomayor?
No. I guess I don't have your imagination.
Obviously Kagan has already seen her own conflict by recusing herself in (at least) 25 cases so far. Will she be consistent? Will the “wise Latina?” We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.
The fact that you would call the very obvious financial conflict of interest a figment of my imagination speaks volumes about you.
If SCOTUS rules that Obama was never lawfully declared the winner of the electoral vote, Kagan and Sotomayor will be thrown out by their ears and can kiss their paychecks and reputations good-bye.
If you can’t even see something as concrete and obvious as that, it’s pretty much pointless for me to try to point out anything to you.
The question is did Kagan represent the government or Obama in one or the many other Supreme Court cases about Obama's eligibility when she was the United States Solicitor General?
Kagan has recused herself from hearing every case in which she did legal work for the Government. The Solicitor General's office has apparently done no work in any of the Obama eligibility cases-- they have never filed anything with the Court in this case or any of the prior ones.
Will the wise Latina? We shall see, IF they happen to hear this case.
I expect that the Court will treat this case the way they treated all prior eligibility cases-- cert. will be denied without a single recorded dissent.
She does have that in her favor at least. Hopefully she’ll do the same on this one. But then that will really show up Sotomayor’s lack of ethics of Kagan recuses herself but Sotomayor doesn’t recuse herself.