Skip to comments.Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama
Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.
Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
(Leona "Queen of Mean" Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.")
So far, not one single official body, including a Republican governor and five Republican USSC justices, has agreed with you.
You don’t even take a case that has no merit. Merely to take it gives it credibility.
You said — “The problem is - it wont do any good now ... maybe the next presidential election it will ....”
And that clarifies the “real nature of the problem” ...
You see..., if someone doesn’t care about taking care of it for the future and most of their energy is expended on getting Obama out of office, then they never did care about the “problem” in the first place. The problem is not Obama, it’s the “process” by which Obama got in there. *That* is the problem.
On the other hand, if someone attack the “real problem” as not having anything to do with Obama and having *entirely* to do with a process that has been discovered to be deficient — then — this is the constructive solution to the problem (i.e., the state laws to that effect).
We can tell how many are really interested in *only* Obama versus interested in “the problem” (of the process which is deficient)...
If it is, it is profoundly disturbing. But the course has not yet fully run.
Someone who can match Soros needs to do some investigating of the leads that exist.
Where is Ross the hoss when the nation needs him?
Maybe you can help? Please inform the rest of us how you know there is no substance to the charge? Obviously, you have proof that others of us have missed.
If not, the fact is that there are a zillion swirling honest questions with no proof to be found. Some of us seemingly care more about upholding the Constitution than others. Apparently.
I predicted last week when the USSC kicked these cases out the next line of attack would be the corrupt/gutless/stupid USSC.
It’s not my burden of proof. It’s the plaintiff’s burden of proof, and clearly he didn’t meet it.
I see. And you know there is no merit....how?
“If there was even a hint of a possibility that Barry O wasnt qualified because of a citizenship question, it would have been looked at by the Justices”
I agree with you except for the above statement.
We would likely already know. As Ohio has recently proved in the case of "Joe the Plumber", some liberal government drone would pry open your files of your hypothetical Republican & splash the contents over the internet regardless any privacy statutes. Privacy is only for liberals.
Just one word ( acronym ) is required: “AP” !!!
Perhaps you should take your head out of the sand, and pay close attention to the content of their stories.
This isn’t, quite unfortunately, my father’s America anymore.
Face it: your only other option here is calling the USSC corrupt, gutless, or stupid---which is exactly what I predicted would happen when these cases got booted.
I have another question: If it's discovered that Zero is constitutionally ineligible, are all of this Executive efforts thereby invalidated?
|Docketed:||October 31, 2008|
|Lower Ct:||United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Oct 30 2008||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)|
|Oct 31 2008||Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.|
|Nov 3 2008||Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.|
|Nov 3 2008||Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.|
|Nov 18 2008||Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 1 2008||Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.|
|Dec 8 2008||Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.|
|Dec 9 2008||Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.|
|Dec 15 2008||Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
OK - then we should start now in doing something about it ...
You’re as rotten as Justice Kennedy!
Clang. Wrong answer. The burden of proof is on the grifter. The Constitution calls for natural born citizenship.
They lack courage is always a nice fallback.
***Let’s see, I criticize your reasoning process and you approve of mine. You should re-examine your thinking process with respect to this issue.
Never can be that there is no substance to a charge.
***Never can be that there is sense to that sentence.
Lacking courage is corruption, BTW.
***Straw argument. Lacking Courage is Lacking Courage. Corruption is Corruption. Your argument was against the strawman you built up for corruption, and this is an attempt to equate lack of courage with corruption so that your argument sticks. Maybe you should just start arguing cogently rather than falling back on classic fallacies and trying to defend them. If I go through your other arguments on the CertifiGate scandal, will I find lots of other classic fallacies, making your entire position untenable?
Where was Barack Obama born?
The American people do not know.
Who was the attending physician or midwife?
The American people do not know.
Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen and therefore qualified to be President of the United States?
The American people do not know.
The news media, the Democrats, and the sold-out Republican “leadership” do not want to know.
This much we know.
They could not care less about the Constitution of the United States, the document they swore before God to protect and defend.
Lawless oathbreakers, one and all.
I understand it quite well thank you. It’s not your job, or my job or even the plaintiff’s job. It’s the grifter’s job..as denoted in the Constitution.
You said — “I realize we are all just paranoid kooks, so please forgive my stupidity, but could you please Mr. All Knowing, provide we kooks with your proof of his Hawaiian birth? Consider it a Christmas present to we lowly peons.”
Let’s look at those who are in a position to find out these things and see what they are doing...
Bush and his Administration wants nothing to do with this Obama qualification issue, Cheney wants nothing to do with this Obama issue, the Republican Party wants nothing to do with this, McCain and his former campaign wants nothing to do with it. Palin wants nothing to do with it and has said she is looking forward to working with the future President Obama, our own conservative media wants nothing to do with this, FReepers here on this board want nothing to do with it, the FBI wants nothing to do with it and sees no crime being committed, our own venerated Electoral College system wants nothing to do with it, and the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with it.
Now..., you come back when you get those people to get involved with it, and then I’ll “change my tune”... LOL..
[Anyone else you want to dredge up and pull out from under a rock who wants “something” to do with this..?]
I haven’t accused the court of anything You have accused me of it. Like I said, intellectual dishonesty.
I agree..., and I’m going to be contacting my elected representative in the state of Oklahoma (I’m here now... :-)...) after the holidays (they’re “too busy” now...) and see about legislation for Oklahoma...
Other FReepers in other states should do this...
I guess SCOTUS is just there for PR anymore because they could care less about the Constitution. They are very good recently about protecting the rights of terrorists in Gitmo but useless on protecting the Constitutional rights of American citizens.
??? I really could give a rip who “wants” to be involved. I don’t either! I just want a simple answer to a simple question. I’m not some lemming who has to toddle along behind Bush or Cheney or anyone else for that matter. But, glad to hear you’ll “get on board” when the elites tell you it’s ok.
You said — “Just one word ( acronym ) is required: AP !!! Perhaps you should take your head out of the sand, and pay close attention to the content of their stories.”
Whatever problems exist elsewhere in the world, it still doesn’t explain your paranoid denial...
And still, the Emperor has no clothes.
You said — “OK then. I’m going to ask the next “next question”. What if the several states start to amend their election law — some will. What if in 4 years Obama cannot run for re-election because of ballot access problems due to his inability to prove N-B citizenship to the satisfaction of 5 or 6 states? Imagine the brouhaha then?”
Now that would be a much more satisfying result, resulting from a “solid process” (no guesswork and no questions) ...
So, let’s get to work on it...
You said — “And still, the Emperor has no clothes.”
All that means is that we still have the Emperor and he’s naked... LOL... That never seems to bother Democrats...
The vetting argument is irrelevant and you can argue it all day long.
It does not change the fact he is probably ineligible to hold office.
If anyone thinks that these lawsuits are going to stop without 0bama producing a legal birth certificate they are sadly mistaken. There is too much money and a few too many people who believe that the constitutional requirement of "Natural Born Citizen" is worth fighting for. My money is on the patriots of the USA and not the people who just want this to "go away."
You said — “??? I really could give a rip who wants to be involved. I dont either! I just want a simple answer to a simple question. Im not some lemming who has to toddle along behind Bush or Cheney or anyone else for that matter. But, glad to hear youll get on board when the elites tell you its ok.”
I guess you don’t know about “politics” then — and about “elections”... You see..., if you don’t “get people on board” you don’t win elections and you don’t get anything done.
And that’s exactly what is happening here — you’re getting nothing done, because “no one is on board”. If that’s not obvious to you, then you don’t belong in the political sphere...
There is still the problem about the validity of the legality of every Law & Executive Order issued if this should come to pass. But it would appear that every other option is fast closing to us.
The Gennifer Flowers tape of Clintoon telling her to lie about their affair, even under oath, using your approach.
Bush and his Administration wanted nothing to do with this issue, VP wanted nothing to do with this issue, the Republican Party wanted nothing to do with this, former campaigns wanted nothing to do with it. Quayle wanted nothing to do with it and said he was looking forward to working with the future President Clintoon, our own conservative media wanted nothing to do with this, FReepers here on this board wanted nothing to do with it, the FBI wanted nothing to do with it and saw no crime being committed, our own venerated Electoral College system wanted nothing to do with it, and the Supreme Court wanted nothing to do with it.
Now, did that make it right? NO! In the end, was Gennifer Flowers proven right, along with Paula Jones, who also got no support from the usual suspects quoted above? YES! Is this issue similar in that it can bring down the oncoming president? YES. So what is your FReeping problem?
“Whatever problems exist elsewhere in the world, it still doesnt explain your paranoid denial”
Are you suggesting that you believe that all of the content of all “AP” stories is factually accurate? Really?
You are entitled to your own opinion, whatever I might happen to think of it. LOL
|Lower Ct:||Supreme Court of California|
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Dec 12 2008||Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Dec 17 2008||Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.|
|Attorneys for Petitioners:|
|Orly Taitz||26302 La Paz||(949) 683-5411|
|Counsel of Record||Mission Viejo, CA 92691|
|Party name: Gail Lightfoot, et al.|
You said — “The vetting argument is irrelevant and you can argue it all day long. It does not change the fact he is probably ineligible to hold office.”
The fact of the matter is that you *do not know* — and that’s a problem of the vetting process. So, the *real problem* is that the vetting process is defective and needs to be corrected.
As I said before — it appears that not very many people are concerned about the “process” — but actually more concerned about knocking out Obama, specifically.
If you’re concerned about the Constitution (and not some individual, solitary candidate) then you’ll be concerned — primarily — about the process...
In this circumstance, politics and winning elections don’t mean a thing. To some of us, the Constitution is what matters here. This isn’t about ANY of the things you are talking about. Principle towers over party, politics OR elections. Sheesh.
You said — “Are you suggesting that you believe that all of the content of all AP stories is factually accurate? Really?”
No, what I’m saying is that it’s *me* who is the one responsible for whether I’m going to be paranoid and in denial... not AP...
Ah, there it is. Exactly correct.
It is like having a mason jar with fresh turd in it. Everyone can see what is in the jar but if no one opens it there is no stink, which would prove the exact nature of the contents. Just make an excuse and pass it on. The SC has no one to pass to so it is denied without comment. They obviously can see the Emperors clothes, right?
Round and round the toilet bowl we go
As the implications of this Supreme Court decision sink in it becomes more and more obvious they think we are mushrooms and should be treated in the same manner.
Mushrooms can be grown and stay healthy by throwing them manure and keeping them in the dark.
If a person does not use that argument, then bringing it up to argue against it is a straw argument.
I see you didn’t bring up the argument that zer0bama might be afraid of a misspelling on his longform birth certificate and it would prove embarrassing, so he’s expending 6 figures worth of resources to hide that misspelling. And, of course, that argument is completely bogus, here’s how... see how that works?
So why are you defending the usage of straw argumentation? Isn’t your intellectual position secure enough that you can use legitimate reasoning?
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy
Kennedy only denied the two injunctions to stops to the Electoral College vote but not the case against Obama.
It’s the President elect’s burden to qualify. It is not our burden to disqualify him/her.
Reference: 20th Amendment, Section 3