Posted on 11/20/2008 11:46:54 PM PST by STARWISE
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review.
This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.
The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Why are no other media outlets covering, or at the very least, mentioning it.
Actually the election is not over until the Electorial College meets on Dec. 15th and casts its votes.
Judging from the “troll panic” on this thread, I think this issue is gaining strength.
Stay tuned...
Except for that fact that the Supreme Court generally avoids cases of a serious constitutional nature, that only an extraordinarily small % of cases are actually taken up by the Court, and that individual justices generally do not issue individual opinions on reviews such as this.
So much misinformation in your post, it is staggering.
I must be a contrarian on this issue. I don’t want the courts to decide who is and who is not qualified to hold office. For president, this is the responsibility of elected officials in the house.
Cab you imagine setting the stage for future conservative presidents or senators having to have their BS vetted by a liberal supreme court?
I spent 8 years waiting for one of the myriad “smoking guns” to bring the Clintons to ruin.
I'm not goin’ through that sort of anguish again.
If Obama is determined ineligible for Presidency:
Will the SC invent new law making it possible for him to take it anyway?
Will the Congress ram through a bill redefining the term “naturalized” so that Obama can take office?
Will there be riots in the streets?
All three of those questions are the reasons I doubt we will ever get a satisfactory answer to this question. Obviously, something is very wrong with the birth certificate or we would have seen it.
Presuming the birth certificate shows information which would disqualify Obama from taking office will the SC have the guts to actually follow the law? Or will we hear some crap about the SC following the will of the people over the Constitution?
What a mess.
This is just like the new Christopher Buckley book, isn’t it? They’ll likely say some b.s. about “We the People”.
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
how did the messiah-elect get back into the country when he traveled to Pakistan circa 1980? U.S. Passport? If so, was it ever renewed? It seems strange that the most famous “citizen of the world” never left the continental U.S. after his trip Pakistan. Any comments?
If this were to process through the SCOTUS, the end result would only be the complete destruction of the United States Constitution in order for the Libs to have their way. Can you even imagine what that would be like?
HMMM. And then there were all those questions about why he hadn’t seen the situation in Iraq firsthand.
Short, sweeet and to the point.
IIRC it was Berg who said on a radio interview that the CIA and FBI knew a lot more than he did, but could only present material if subpoenaed to court ( and asked the right questions.)
I believe I read that California(because of Alan Keyes) won’t release the electoral votes until status of nbc has been proven, and 11 other states were going to do the same.
???
LOL!
if (c) why not just release it and put an end to the rumors? that is what i don’t understand"
There is a case (d) to consider:
Perhaps his birth certificate (merely) contains some embarrassing factoid. Maybe his Dad is not Barack Obama, Sr. (which makes his book and his Kenya obsession look silly---but might explain why helping close impoverished African relatives is above his pay grade). Or maybe his name is actually Wilber Alfred Dunham.
Methinks that behind those closed doors, Justice Thomas is going to make clear that no matter what happens, moonbats from some side are going to go ballistic - and not just figuratively. This is why Constitutional crisies are to be avoided early, and not let such such BS sneak in under the radar. If this thing isn't addressed, it's not going to just go away.
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.