Posted on 06/11/2012 10:42:09 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship and his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
Without comment, the high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake and Markham Robinson.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressherald.com ...
Personally, I think everyone and anyone within the democrat's party who signed off on zero being legit should be sued so we can see just what vetting was done to ensure zero was within Constitutional compliance.
Given by Roberts, no less. This is further proof that Thomas, by his own words, that the SCOTUS is "evading" the issue. No one in government has the balls to up hold the US Constitution.
Wwhen I returned to my NY State after living in California, in order to get on the voter registration roll, I had to prove I was US citizen, show ID and a raised seal embossed original paper birth certificate, and luckily the local registrar knew my parents and whole family from my youth, and my mother attested for me coz she was on the roll too and everyone knew her.
I do not think Obummer could move to NY State and be eligible to vote here.
We will never know how many voted to take the case, but we do know that it would have taken four votes to take the case.
Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy Alito and Scaila did not all vote to take the Obama case, maybe out of fear or maybe because at least two of them are actually Agents of Obama.
We are so screwed!
“We have a system to challege the President in matter.
1. Elections
2. Electorial College session.”
The standard is not who gets to be on ballots nor who gets to be voted in by the electoral college, but who gets to be president. If any random citizen does not have the standing to enforce the clause guarantying them an NBC as president then standing is some bizarre esoteric standard divorced from common sense and standing in the way of.
This, by the way, is from someone who thinks Obama is an NBC and that birtherism is a waste of time. If the courts can strike down politically motivated challenges, be they against Bush the Younger or Obama, merely because they’re a waste of time, then our legal system would have traded justice for convenience.
Which is not to say that this is a secret. What the heck else are plea bargains about, anyway? It’s just that it’s not always so baldly and obviously unjust. At least with plea bargains you can pretend.
bfl
The Court must think it is For The Common Good.(/s)
The Supreme Court declines to hear thousands of "properly filed" cases every year. They have always picked and chosen which cases they will hear.
They had to get involved in Bush v Gore. There is no compelling argument for them to wade into this case.
If you want Obama gone, like we all do, then an election is how that is going to happen.
Is it not ironic (actually a much stronger word is required but it would get me banned) that citizens of this country are actually viewed by the black robed morons as not worthy of “standing” when the case at hand is if the grossly under-documented President of the USA has “standing” to be President?
Anyone who believes this garbage should not be allowed anywhere near our legal system.
People if you do not realize the fix is in and we are simply cash cows to be milked for the ruling elite’s enjoyment then you are in complete denial.
The very notion that a US Citizen does not have standing before the US Supreme Court is so foreign in concept to the government given to us by the founders as to defy reason.
One more instance how the progressive infested education system has cranked out millions of constitutionally ignorant people. Most could not even pass Civics 101. De-fund public education immediately before it removes all traces of the brilliance of the founders.
I've always appreciated your honesty and thoughtful comments on the birther threads.
That being said, I couldn't disagree with you more on this.
Well I agree that the electoral college or congress should have ensured obama or any candidate is qualified. The fact that law suits are even required four years after the fact is pathetic
But on my point - a lawsuit by a partisan politician on our side carries baggage and is analogous to a lawsuit brought by al gore. I doubt that had anything to do with the SC not taking the case. Just an observation.
Technically, maybe only a State has standing in this matter. Some other state would have to challenge Hawaii’s declaration. Theoretically, the President is chosen by the electors chosen by the States. An elector, maybe, but how could he/she show injury?
If you go by Jones V Bush, then only John McCain would have had standing.
“Since all I seem to hear out of these ‘reports’ is ‘lacks standing’; I’m curious if it has yet been defined just who in the hell actually has standing?”
The standard is that the plantiffs must “demonstrate a specific and individualized injury” resulting in this case from purported violation of the NBC clause. Now, what constitutes demonstration, what is or isn’t “specific,” what is properly “individualized,” and what counts as an “injury” is up entirely to the discretion of judges. Unsurprisingly they tend to fall down on the side of what they had already made their minds up not to have trials about.
Judges are forever pulling such standards out of thin air to justify their preconceived notions. Random citizens pot-shotting at the president are a nuisance and eat up precious time, so...um...they don’t have standing. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Did you ever wonder why SCOTUS only considers certain items in the Bill of Rights—such as the 1st, 4th, and 5th—to have been “incorporated” by the 14th amendment into applying to the states, whereas certain others—such as the 2nd and 9th—haven’t? Well, look no further than the infamous Footnote 4 of the U.S. v. Carolene Products Co. decision. Out of thin air it set up a standard whereby “rational-basis review” applies to economic and other regulations, whereas laws affecting “insular minorities” require more heightened review.
This is so, I guess, because the 14th amendment was written with the intent of protecting former slaves. Whatever it was, eventually it led to favoring particular parts of the Bill of Rights over others. This despite the fact that “rational basis” and “heightened scrutiny” have no basis in actual law, nor does the universal judicial practice these days of granting a “presumption of Constitutionality” to laws that don’t go after “insular minorities” or otherwise run afoul of the justices’ preferred amendments.
It all comes out of thin air, as does their standard for standing to insist that presidential eligibility requirements are met.
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.