Justice Thomas Refers Obama Birth Certificate Suit to Full Court

News AOL ^ | Dec 4th 2008 10:46PM | Dave

[ckilmer]

The remaining case with the highest profile is Donofrio vs. Wells. Because it was referred by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to other justices for conference, it gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works, Volokh said.

[neodad]

Here we go!

[Deb]

They won’t do it.

[earlJam]

I’m with you.

After the Bush/Gore case of 2000, I don’t think the Supremes want to touch this one.

[PhilosopherStones]

I doubt they’ll do it too. But at the very least, they may set some terms as to what a Presidential Candidate must provide to show that he is Constitutionally qualified. As far as I know, this is the first case of its kind in our history.

Further, if they don’t decide, then every Executive Order that Obama signs will be open to suit since there will still be questions about whether he is legally qualified to sign Executive Orders. One way or another, this case will be heard.

[RC2]

Technicality, technicality, technicality. What this is basically saying is that if you have enough technicalities, you can violate the Constitution. Great!!!!

[Jim W N]

I'm not an Obamacrat and I have a copy of the Constitution in my hand, and so far, I've seen only Constitutional distinction regarding citizenship I've seen is 1) born in the U.S. or 2) naturalized in the U.S., with the caveat of being subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

So far, I haven't seen a third category in COTUS or law distinguishing something called "natural born" citizen as opposed to simply born in the U.S.

The issue at hand as far as I know is the question about Obama's "missing" (not brought forward) hospital birth record which would be critical evidence to validate his birthplace.

[jcsjcm]

I believe these are the cases that they strive for. It does have to do with the Constitution and they will rule on it. I am feeling very optimistic about this.

[EyeGuy]

“After the Bush/Gore case of 2000, I don’t think the Supremes want to touch this one.”

#####

Despite the propaganda from the braying jackasses in the LeftMedia, the Supreme Court CORRECTLY rectified wrongdoing by the out-of-control liberal FL Supreme Court in the 2000 Bush/Gore debacle.

If they had to take such PROPER action 1000 times, it should not change their approach to this case in the least.

[WildcatClan]

So loosely translated, Dave says we aren’t going to get the outcome we wanted so to hell with the Constitution. What Amendment is that, Dave? The 97th, which states; If in questions of constitutionality, one group is perceived as being a “kook” or a “truther”, said group should abandon all hope and accept the change.

[ctdonath2]

I doubt they’ll do it

Well, half the problem is that they can't just move on their own. The technical details must be appropriate and suitable. IIRC, the issue as presented to them questions the citizenship & residency of O's parents. As there are actually several ways which O could be disqualified, SCOTUS must be presented with the disqualifying issue before they can say he is disqualified; they can't jump from one to another without an actual complaint presented.

This was reflected some years ago when Justice Thomas basically said publicly "the reason we haven't upheld the 2nd Amendment as written is that nobody has given us a viable case to do so with". Heller followed.

Ergo, if (say) O is disqualified because he was actually born in Kenya, SCOTUS cannot come to that conclusion from the case at hand. As presented, it sounds like SCOTUS can produce a ruling about the fine line regarding citizenship regarding various permutations of parentage, but there is nothing actually demanding a ruling on whether he was born here. They could rule that such parentage is not disqualifying if O was US born, but not address whether or not he actually is US born.

[MrB]

This is, seriously, and with no derisive intent,

the way liberals think.

The Constitution was ratified at a time when they didn’t have the information that we have today, so any restrictions that thwart the desired outcome aren’t applicable.

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Until all of this came up I just assumed that before a person could be listed on a ballot for an office he/she would have to provide proof of qualification based on local state and federal statutes. It blows my mind that a person filinf for the highest office in the land doesn’t have to provide that proof.

[SMARTY]

Right and FOX ‘Breaking news’ is about stupid OJ appearing for sentencing...

Guess that’s more important... Nothing of Drudge

[earlJam]

I think there are THREE or FOUR justices who strive for cases like this.

But no more.

[earlJam]

I agree the Supremes did the right thing in 2000.

But I think they will also think twice before wading into another presidential election.

[Ann Archy]

So did I!!!! I thought the candidates would provide IDENTIFICATION and BIRTH CERTIFICATES when they FILE FOR ELECTIONS!! They HAVE to fill out forms before their names go on ballots!!

[Old Sarge]

Did you doubt that Faux News-Obama would ever break its patented success routine? Drudge-Obama as well?

[FrankR]

"So far, I haven't seen a third category in COTUS or law distinguishing something called "natural born" citizen as opposed to simply born in the U.S. "

Please explain what you see as the difference...

[jcsjcm]

I think there are THREE or FOUR justices who strive for cases like this.

But no more.

Well, then I am hoping for at least 4 of them..... :)