Posted on 03/24/2009 12:41:30 PM PDT by rxsid
>>>So any word on the paperwork to Roberts then? Or is this it?
Only what I posted. Officer Giaccino reported they have the filings and are reviewing them. We get more information tomorrow after 1:00pm EST.
By passing the BAR exam and becoming a licensed attorney.
In the United States the suffix "Esq." is most commonly encountered in use among individuals licensed to practice law. This usage applies to both male and female lawyers. The term "Esquire" is assumed by the legal profession, and has not been awarded to it by any government or authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire
Do you know the web site for the SC? I've wanted to look there, but not really sure where to look either.
BUMP ! Good news — I pray the Justices are true to the Constitution.
Thanks, Calpernia. I appreciate that. :)
I’ve been keeping all of you working on these cases in my prayers, and I’ll definitely keep doing so. Thank you for everything you’ve done to help Dr. Taitz - and all of us, really! I don’t think any of us will ever forget it. :)
Aack-So many unbelievable links and ties in O’s inner circle of buds.
History will not forget the ‘new’ Patriots that saved (hopefully) our Constitution!
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Currently:
~~~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.
Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.
Jan 7 2009 Application (08A524) referred to the Court.
Jan 13 2009 Suggestion for recusal received from applicant.
Jan 22 2009 Supplemental brief of applicant Gail Lightfoot, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 26 2009 Application (08A524) denied by the Court.
“People will be climbing all over the band wagon looking for an excuse to get rid of the Obama presidency.”
I agree with you. Early on, SCOTUS was/is reluctant to take up this case. There are matters of perception by the general public that, in my opinion, have resulted in virtually everyone in the US lacking standing on this constitutional question (an unlikely situation, though the courts seem to believe it so far).
At some point (and this is becoming more obvious, even in the last week), it will become apparent that the current POTUS is not up to the task, and is becoming an embarrassment. At that point, as things begin to get ugly, SCOTUS will have to take it up as a legal method of removal for the problem. A legal, politically acceptable method of dealing with the problem is ever to be preferred, and legal solutions are what SCOTUS is all about.
When SCOTUS has the opportunity to be viewed as a solution to a nationally perceived problem, is the point at which they will take up the question (in my opinion). I believe that they would rather do this, than do it too soon and be perceived as partisan (though we all know that they are).
Maybe it was on a comment I didn’t see. But I know we didn’t post anything like that in article format.
Dr. Orly addresses Roberts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9O9usBeg9Y
Thanks. I’ve been searching some sites for the SC about the clerks, but so far all I’m finding are the clerks assigned to each Justice. Aren’t there some who do various specific jobs there? Are only the ones listed for each Justice the only ones there?
No, it wasn’t an article itself, just a comment or a comment copied from Orly’s site.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ This lovely little Russian refugee is working herself to exhaustion to save YOUR country. It is reported that she is surviving on 3-4 hours sleep per night and is bearing much of the expense of her lawsuits herself. Please go to Dr. Orly's website http://defendourfreedoms.us/ and help her. She is asking for researchers and volunteers.
A good opinion (IMO). haha. The issue would have been waaayyy too much of a hot potato to touch early on. Now that things are changing (pun intended), it may not be so 'difficult' to address.
Doesn't make it right in light of defending our Constitution...but I can see how that 'argument' would be so.
On the other hand, if some/most of these cases, briefs, etc where never seen by the justices because of (alleged) subversion, then that's a whole different ball game (IMO).
Her fight to save our Constitution hasn’t gone ‘unnoticed’ by me.
Isn’t it amazing to think that that our country may be saved by a
Russian refugee?
God bless her and keep her safe
Thanks for keeping us updated on this. It’s moving along, although ever so slowly. Will keep praying.
It might be easier for SCOTUS to invalidate Obama’s election and deal with the fraud rampant in the Democrat Party than to sit through hearing after hearing of Constiutionality cases regarding the laws he has passed and WANTS to pass!
Congress has overstepped it’s bounds. It’s time for SCOTUS to deliver the checkmate.
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.