Posted on 02/27/2011 8:17:22 AM PST by freepersup
Thanks for the ping!
I hope this will soon come to a head.
Probably... wishful thinking on CDR Kerchner’s part. Thanks for the research and subsequent education.
Thank you for all of your contributions to the subject matter at hand. I’m getting a hell of an education whether I want one or not. Time to hit the hay. Goodnight everyone. Nice to spend time amongst like minds with like goals.
G’night! Thank you and everyone for the great detective work.
G’night! Thank you and everyone for the great detective work.
"Hey Clarence Thoms doesn't recuse himself from issues affecting his "friends" ...why should Kagankommie and and the world's smartest Latina?"
Yeah, well... They didn’t nominate him to SCOUTS did they.
No one believes Kagen and Sotomayor will rule against the bastard who nomitted them to the court on this issue. Largely because it would mean losing their lifetime appointments. No big deal.
/EPIC sarcasm. No Srsly. EPIC SARCASM. Really seriously epic. Like King Arthur Pendragon epic. Anailnathrach ortha bhais beatha do cheal deanaimha sort of epic sarc.
Sigh... The game of thrones does make me sick.
Right now the SCOTUS is only ruling on whether or not they should be recused, not even if they will take the case.
In regard to the more substantive issues, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas (I have been led to believe) would vote in conference to hear these cases. No other Justice would... or apparently has.
That these three are stonewalled by the other 6, including Roberts is particularly galling. The excuse (mighty thin) is that under the Constitution as Amended, matters of eligibility are the province of the Federal District Court in DC, which has thrown stumbling blocks in the path of those attempting a Writ of Quo Warranto..
However, none of those Justices voting in conference against these cases, have apparently considered the possibility of remanding the issue to that court for discovery.
The screwiest factoid bobbing up in this toxic punchbowl is that there is an excellent chance there actually is no such "legal person" as Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Lawyer Hemenway's theory is that when young Barack was adopted and his name changed, any original records such as the evanescent BC, would have been sealed, so that if the State of Hawaii were to release the documentation, the name on it would be "Soetoro, " or quite possibly "Soetorabakh." It was never legally changed back.
And always lurking in the background is the incontrovertible evidence of the Obama Illinois Bar app, on which the man flat-out denied ever having used an alias! Also incontrovertible is the fact that he is no longer a member of that bar, accepting the opportunity to resign after an inquiry. No hearing. Sealed records. (Oddly enough, same deal for Michelle!)
I believe that it was the unfounded fear of "racial unrest" that caused the official world to turn a blind eye to these issues at the appropriate time in 2007 and 2008. Those eyes are still blind, particularly in the GOP, in which not one (1) national figure has had the nerve to even mention eligibility.
The Republican Party has accepted a leader who has led us into a Depression, rather than stand up for those who elected them.
Kenny, all:
Original sourcing is a good idea.
This is the website of the Fund that is carrying the Hollister case. Under the tab “filings” is the Petition for Rehearing. It lays out what has been brought to SCOTUS for consideration that will be addressed this coming Friday.
The Petition for Rehearing goes beyond the recusal motion (that is also at the site under its ‘filings’ tab). It brings up the Abercrombie matter, the finding of contempt against this Administration on the LA ruling by Judge Feldman on Gulf drilling, and other matters and the ruling of Judge Vinson in FL on the health care legislation.
Perhaps that contempt and other similar news of recent vintage will persuade any Justice sitting on the fence that this is a matter deserving a hearing.
After reading the filings, I would also recommend hitting the “donate” button.
http://constitutionalruleoflawfund.org/PETITION%20FOR%20REHEARING.html
Perhaps I have the proverbial cart before the horse... would a recusal come before a vote to grant certiorari? If so, and it’s a big if so, does the majority threshold remain at 4, even though there are now just 5 Justices voting? Or does the majority shift to 3?
. . . . . # 80 , # 91 , and don't miss the salient points in # 94.
.
...the Supreme Court can do what it likes. If it wants to allow the "rule of 3", it may do do at its discretion.
True.
To elaborate on the intent of the rule of 4...as you stated, it was put in place "to prevent a majority of justices from controlling the docket."
In other words, it exists to give a "minority" view on the court some "weight."
With that in mind...IF Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves...that would leave 7 justices. If they left the rule of 4 in tact, that means the original intention of the rule would become moot as then the 4 (or a majority in that case) would be "controlling" the docket.
In order for the intent of the informal "rule of 4" to be maintained...then it's possible that only 3 justices would be needed to grant cert.
To maintain the reason for the rule in the first place...it would make sense for them to allow 3 to be consistent.
I am hoping that the SCOTUS is now at the point of either remanding this to the Federal District for discovery or taking on the case itself. Let us pray for the latter.
.......the Abercrombie matter, the finding of contempt against this Administration on the LA ruling by Judge Feldman on Gulf drilling, and other matters and the ruling of Judge Vinson in FL on the health care legislation...
Today, Obama claimed to have found a "State Waiver" clause in his health care law in a blatant attempt to short-circuit Judge Vinson. It seems that will be available in 2017! Look, if we need to, perhaps we can allow Soetoro/Obama to live in the White House and throw Motown Theme Parties. But clearly, we are headed into a 10-year world-wide depression because of this fellow who should never have been allowed to run, much less rule. He must be disconnected from power.
http://constitutionalruleoflawfund.org/PETITION%20FOR%20REHEARING.html
$5 each per month.
Please read ED's link. Lawyer Hemenway's Petition is as fine a plain piece of legal writing as you are ever apt to see.
Well how can Obama be President, he can’t pass
E-verify..where is his I-9 who is checking government employees I-9’s?
This demands an investigation. Failure to question, investigate and reply to this is dereliction of duty.
Issa are you reading this?
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.