Skip to comments.New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court (re: Hollister v Soetoro)
Posted on 01/01/2011 2:12:48 PM PST by rxsid
"New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court
Attorney calls for recusal of Obama judicial appointees
"There is a widespread perception among 'conservative' media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that judicial appointments have been made by the respondent Obama with the expectation of favors in return. This has combined with a campaign of ridicule and 'unthinkability' on these serious issues led by the press spokesman of the respondent Obama among others," said a "motion to recuse" submitted by attorneys working on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired military officer.
The motion cites Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both of whom were awarded the lifetime tenure positions on probably the most influential court in the world by Obama.
"What is very much at issue here is the question of public perception. Will this court be bound by the Constitution and the law that it sets out under the Constitution? It is important that this court, above all institutions, preserves and protects the Constitution and a rule of law based upon it," the motion states.
"We would think that this is particularly the case in light of the historically unprecedented attack on this court's determination to uphold the constitutional rule of law engaged in by the respondent Obama during the State of the Union Address that he gave in January of 2010. It is as if he and those working with him and backing him believe that this court and the federal judiciary can be manipulated and intimidated in the manner that investigations have revealed as having occurred in the courts of Cook County, Illinois.
"We would suggest that this court should particularly avoid the appearance of favoritism as overriding the rule of law based upon the Constitution," the motion said. "
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
"New eligibility challenge reaches Supreme Court (re: Hollister v Soetoro)
Sotomayor and Kagan should be informed that they are to go home and stay there until the outcome of the Supreme Hearing Process is achieved. Lets say the Supreme Court decides to hear the case and it is ruled Obummer is unconstitutional and to be removed so too will be Sotomayor and Kagan. All the rulings that they were part of will be recalled for another hearing. I am not an attorney but it seems if their appointments were confered by an illegal would not their appointments and rulings be to considered illegal.
Not smart enough to know the legal merits of this challenge to the Onada usurped presidency. But it looks like the challenges are evolving into ever more difficult arguments for the SC to brush off.
If this test passes muster then it would follow that any strategic order passed down by the military was also invalid.
Something must be up, though I’m sure it’s a longshot. Why else would Gov Abercrombie in HI resurface this issue?
Keep in mind that the Democrats believe this is a winning issue for them, not unlike Whitewater was for Clinton. The media makes the sheeple believe that this is the fantasy of those evil, mean-spirited Republicans. So they may be deliberately resurfacing the issue.
Lastly, my crystal ball tells me that in one of these cases, SCOTUS is going to find merit, but frame the decision so it won’t hurt Obama or the office of the Presidency. Not unlike when the WFL sued the NFL and won the princely sum of $1, then promptly folded.
Most-likely scenario? (Re-emergence of the “birth certificate” issue explained)
Although I would enjoy that result, I'm not sure it would follow, given a 0' removal. Thinking of how to back out of every decision and signature, seems to me would be impossible and generate a mess. Would all the recipients of the "stimulus" have to repay them back, since 0's signature on that legislation was invalid? Would GM stock be returned to shareholders, and taken away from the unions? If one thing he did was retained, then perhaps all would have to be retained, and then proceed on a different tact: that of new legislation and action to correct the mistakes (ie: every action) of the past 2 years.
I swear I’m not gonna get my hopes up...
There is a widespread perception among 'conservative' media figures such as Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin that judicial appointments have been made by the respondent Obama with the expectation of favors in return.
No. If Obama is found to be ineligible, the de facto officer doctrine will apply. All appointments, executive orders, legislation signed by Obama, etc. will stand (remain in place).
What I fail to understand is that given the very real possibility that Obama IS an illegal president, WHY haven’t the states taken action to put a law into effect that prevents an ineligible candidate from getting on the ballot? To date, isn’t Arizona the ONLY state that has done so?
The de facto officer doctrine confers validity upon acts performed by a person acting under the color of official title even though it is later discovered that the legality of that person’s appointment or election to office is deficient. Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 440 (1886).
“The de facto doctrine springs from the fear of the chaos that would result from multiple and repetitious suits challenging every action taken by every official whose claim to office could be open to question, and seeks to protect the public by insuring the orderly functioning of the government despite technical defects in title to office.” 63A Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees § 578, pp. 1080-1081 (1984) (footnote omitted).
The de facto doctrine is designed to cover someone elected in good faith, who had no knowledge of issues regarding eligibility. The issue of obama’s eligibility has been ongoing since 2004!. obama knows that he is not eligible to be President , therefore there is no “good faith”. All acts ( appointments,bills )signed by obama would be voided.
I don't think the de facto doctrine applies to Barry:
"To satisfy the doctrine, the officer must be in the unobstructed possession of the office and discharging its duties in full view of the public, in such manner and under such circumstances as not to present the appearance of being an intruder or usurper."