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 ...
Here’s another “you don’t have standing” kick-the-can-down-the-road decision. sigh
I doubt the case challenged his ‘American citizenship’: thank you AP for mis-reporting.
Great. So now the SCOTUS agrees with Obama, that the U. S. Constitution doesn’t apply to him.
Unfortunately a challenge by a former presidential candidate carries the backage of looking like a political attack. Better to have an ordinary citizen behind it.
"no legal standing"
OK.
Well, it is just the eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
IMO any American Citizen off the street would have 100% "legal standing."
But lets not interfere with the pee-cee of the situation or pay any attention to the ever-growing truckload of evidence that indicates something is VERY wrong with our affirmative action choom-choom prezzy B's background.
The level of stupid with this is beyond comprehension.
.
I’ve felt that the “Fix” was in from the moment that he took the second (secret) oath of office on immaculation day. Then also there was that picture of him schmoozing with the supremos. Bad vibes from that one too.
I am beginning to lose total confidence in the Supreme Court. They are beginning to look more like part of King Obama’s organization. Getting real sad that the Court does not seem to hear properly filed cases. This standing horseshit is getting old.
Most of the people in this country knows something’s not right about this guy’s life. I believe most of the people who still worship him know it. It’s just that most people don’t care.
AP can’t resist the “birther” slur even after the Breitbart discovery of Obama’s born-in-Kenya bio completely validated the eligibility issue. The Supreme Court’s handling of Obama’s eligibility will not reflect well on the justices.
Any U. S. Citizen whatsoever should be deemed to have standing to challenge the POTUS’ ability to meet the Constitutional bar to represent them in that office.
Talk about disenfranchised! Even people who ran against this Kenyan lout have no standing?
Pray tell, who would have legal standing?
Checks and balances were provided in our system of governance to avoid the populace having to take things into their own hands. Is the SCOTUS so addled that it can’t grasp the importance of these matters enough to grant reasonable standing to citizens to demand our laws are observed?
If they ever expect to advance their cause, the NBC birthers will have to remove Obama as the target...at least until after he's out of office. That's reality.
Sadly the courts have repeatably and consistently rules that no ordinary citizen nor member of the Armed Services has "standing" to determine if the current Commander-in-Chief and President of these United States is constitutionally qualified to hold that high office.
Repeatably and consistently.
Can you really blame Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Scaila?
Of course those Justices have the power to remove Obama from office, they must fear that Obama during the duration of the case at the SCOTUS would use his assets at the CIA to neutralize the Justices.
(Please don't step on the troll)
What was the vote?
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.
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.
What you said!
Honestly, I'm beginning to warm up to the idea of secession, especially if this usurper (GOD forbid) gets back in.
Legitimately, you’re probably right. But he could be treated as he has by Hawaii, they just give him legitimacy without reality. Did the clintoons have to show proof to become voters in NY state? I doubt it. They were probably given ‘assumptions’ just the way Hawaii legitimzes the little bastard commie.
They look useless from my corner of the swamp.
The office of elector, of course, ends after his vote is cast. Thus, it seems, that only a State could raise the issue. I just wish a court would say so, rather than stand silent.
I echo that.
“no compelling argument,” you say?
No compelling argument? I would submit that there is no greater compeling argument than circumstances currently presents: the United States of America stands perched on the edge of destruction, intentional destruction, because an usurper has lied his way into our Executive branch. It is an emergency, a catasprohe of the highest order.
Foreign invasion a la Red Dawn? at least the population would then know their enemy. This situation is killin us from within by rendering our founding laws moot. Laws are what keep a republic in existence.
SCOTUS are cowards who know the US is a walking corpse that hasn’t the sense yet to stop walking around.
We need a rulebook, it seems, to figure out what rules need to be followed and what rules are window dressing only.
Keye should have standing but the 9th circus court ruled that he because the lawsuit was filed AFTER Obama was sworn, then he was no longer a candidate at that point, and therefore no longer had any potential for legal standing. Yes, I know, it’s a retarded ruling, but the Supreme Court upheld it by failing to accept the case.
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.