Posted on 12/02/2010 7:11:40 AM PST by FreeAtlanta
You have a handful of FINOs popping up at every turn telling us they are REAL Conservatives, but defending their "leader" at any cost to keep him in office by muddying the water with postings. Some of them even former military!!!
No surprise, last week I saw a beat up pick-up truck outside Wal-Mart in Tampa with the "U.S. Marine" license plate and a "Obama 08" sticker next to it???
Just look one above. Still active!!!
Bottom line, the case was dismissed without being heard on the merits whether under a narrow or broad definition of standing.
IIRC, Hollister’s attempt to gain standing (achieved or not) was basically indistinguishable from Kerchner’s with both being retired military hypothetically subject to recall to serve under an apparently ineligible CIC.
Will SCOTUS chose Hollister over Kerchner as a possible case to reach the issue on the merits? I doubt it, but I don't presume to know how SCOTUS will rule like the anti-birthers.
SCOTUS “evaded” ruling on 2A gun rights or corporate rights as “legal persons” to make campaign contributions for decades until the “right” case came to them and they could “reach” the issue on a basis that could get a majority opinion.
I don't know, and neither does anybody else IMO whether the SCOTUS refusal to hear these cases reflects an affirmation that Obama is NBC or whether the particular plaintiffs were simply unable to get over the standing or merits (as you call it) hurdles to get the case heard. SCOTUS has never commented on exactly why they refused to hear any of the eligibility cases
It has just occurred to my that the fact that Sotomayor and Kagan chose not to recuse themselves could be a hint that the refusal to grant cert was based only on standing (or right to have the case heard on the merits for AV), not an affirmation that Obama is NBC.
Sotomayor and Kagan could rationalize that they retained judicial impartiality when ruling on the standing of Kerchner because the NBC issue would not actually be before them because Obama's personal and DOJ attorneys have made sure that no evidence proving who Obama's father is has yet been submitted at trial. SCOTUS is an appeals court and can only rule on whether the law has been correctly applied to the facts presented at trial.
With no trial yet, not facts in evidence that Obama is dual citizen or NBC, no birth certificate in evidence means no ability for SCOTUS to rule on eligibility which means no need for Sotomayor or Kagan to recuse themselves.
He was a Pearl Harbor survivor. He saw it all.
I don't know when it started, but he began a steady progression to the left.
At the time of his death he had progressed so far to the left that he actually believed the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified. He basically wouldn't associate with anyone that didn't agree with him. His son had pretty much disowned him.
Nobody can tell me that liberalism is not a mental disease.
As you say you are not a lawyer and clearly do not know the difference between dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)which addresses lack of jurisdiction and thereby lack of standing and a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) which admits both and here was specifically a dismissal for a failure to state a claim as to the claim for which jurisdiction and standing are acknowledged by the court before analyzing for the supposed failure to state a claim. Try reading the rules. They are available on line along with the committee notes from their adoption.
I know it’s frustrating to do remedial work with people who aren’t lawyers, but how did Hollister fail to state a claim? What would a court base their affirmation of jurisdiction and standing on if there wasn’t a claim? This is confusing to me.
An analysis of the district court dismissal opinion reveals that the judge found a failure to state a claim by focusing solely on the concept of “property” in the interpleader statute and ignoring the statute’s disjunctive use of the word “obligation” which is a well known word of clear meaning in common use. The statute allows interpleader when there is an “obligation” that is worth at least $500. Clearly a colonel’s salary meets that standard. This failure to analyze an important part of the statute while focusing solely on another combined with the evident bias based clearly on extra-judicial factors to make it a flawed opinion. The appellate court, however, made no independent analysis of these matters and adopted the lower court opinion without comment. It did not analyze standing although the Perkins Coie attorneys raised the issue. Thus the finding of jurisdiction to include standing remains at this point, although Obama is likely to renew it.
See if I’m understanding this correctly. The court said that not enough money was at issue, by ignoring that a salary is supposed to be able to count toward the $500 minimum?
If so, wow. Not enough is at stake.
That has got to be one of the most blatant red flags ever. But it’s couched in terminology and minutiae so only the lawyers would catch it. If I’m understanding correctly.
It should be a red flag, for sure, when combined with the evident bias that was exhibited, but as I learned many years ago, in a case in which I battled with the Kennedy bunch, who were somewhat like this Ci-cago bunch in their use of illegal means and the intimidation of their critics and control of the press, and did win cert, and as I was told by another, (now deceased,) lawyer: "Sometimes you can be right on the law and they're just not going to let you win." This Hollister case puts the entire constitutional rule of law on the line. If this product of affirmative action, who knew his eligibility was questionable, is placed above the law then the system of the constitutional rule of law has been destroyed. Witness his attempt to intimidate the members of SCOTUS at the State of the Union Address, like they were Cook County judges of the sort that were investigated in Operation Greylord. "Show me the f---ing money, and I'll show you the f---ing justice." The One clearly believes that he has intimidated the judges and justices and that he and his gang, by the use of the tactics of attack and diversion from Alinsky's rules, have made upholding the Constitution and making him accountable to it, "unthinkable" even to the members of SCOTUS.
Exactly. Obama himself is not what saddens, angers, and threatens me. It’s the utter failure of the system that is supposed to be guarding the rule of law. We are literally in a battle for the rule of law - the basic foundation of every civilization.
And when I look at the rulings and behaviors of the judges, Obama seems to be right in thinking he has them all intimidated - “conservativs” as well as liberal judges. Same thing with the media. On this issue alone, he has the “conservative” media eating out of his hand just like the liberal media.
There’s very credible evidence that he accomplished that with the conservative media through threats. Makes me seriously wonder what he has over the judges.
I know this probably sounds crazy, but it sounds like you have a working knowledge of what the Chicago-type machine is capable of so maybe that will help me sound less crazy to you. lol.
There have been rumblings about Chief Justice Roberts having financial conflicts of interest. That’s a totally hypocritical topic, considering that Sotomayor and Kagan have financial conflicts of interest on any of the eligibility issues but won’t recuse themselves. But the question remained of who in the Kerchner case was possibly the fourth justice who balked.
I’m wondering if the rumblings about Roberts might have been to add a little personal incentive for him to not make trouble for Obama. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have all given hints of where they stand. If what Taitz said is true, Scalia implied that they were one vote short. Alito refused to attend the SCOTUS meeting with Obama when cases were pending (though he never specifically stated why). And Thomas admitted that they are “evading” the issue, which is not something I think he would brag about and he was serious when he made the statement. He was also suggesting that Serrano would have better luck trying to be a SCOTUS justice than trying to be a POTUS because a SCOTUS justice doesn’t have to be born in the USA.
So I really wonder if the hold-out is Roberts, and if Obama has been pressuring him PERSONALLY to keep him from siding with justice.
And it’s an incurable disease. My 92-yrs M-i-L is one of them!!!
In saying Hollister didn’t state a claim, could they end up saying that they didn’t even consider standing and jurisdiction because there wasn’t a claim? Which do they check first - standing and jurisdiction, or whether the suit qualifies under the provisions of the interpleader law?
Well, that sucks.
Any court at any level may examine standing on its own volition and it can be raised at any level by any party. Hollister and his counsel obviously did not appeal the finding of standing. This will probably cause Obama not to risk not raising standing by waiving their right to respond to the cert petition for Hollister and Hemenway.
So you think Obama will respond to the cert petition by arguing against standing? Sorry for the stupid question, but is the Hollister case before SCOTUS now, or is that the next step? Does SCOTUS have to grant certiorari in order to consider whether there’s standing? Or can they just blow off the whole thing?
What mechanisms are there for holding the judges personally accountable? I know we have the appeals process to try to undo the damages, but in instances where the judge is either documentably negligent or outright corrupt in the judgment they give, is there any personal consequence for that? What means do we have for keeping these critters honest?
Is Hollister’s case the one that Robertson said had already been decided on “Twitter”?
Yes, he said that the issue of Obama’s “citizenship” had been decided by “America’s vigilant citizenry” because they had “raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged...” it on the Internet. This, needless to say is pretty clearly reliance on an “extrajudicial factor” indicating bias.
Isn’t that considered unethical, to base a decision on something not admitted to the court as evidence? Kind of the ex parte thing?
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.