Posted on 12/09/2008 9:10:17 AM PST by ckilmer
When the Supreme Court denied cert to Leo Donofrio, most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest. Not so fast, as Dave Weigel reluctantly notes. Justice Antonin Scalia has referred another lawsuit to conference covering much the same ground in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and the Birther movement has another brief reprieve:
Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. …
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Indeed, as the docket report shows, Ginsburg rejected Wrotnowski two weeks ago, at least for injunctive relief. Scalia didn’t provide an injunction, but instead of following the example set by Donofrio, he referred the case to conference. That seems a little unusual, since Wrotnowski appears to plow the same ground as Donofrio, which is that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because his father was a British subject, even though Obama was born in the US.
Hot Air readers already know our deep skepticism regarding these lawsuits. Barack Obama was born in the United States of one native-born American citizen (his mother), which should satisfy all but the bitter-enders of this election. Both Wrotnowski and Donofrio concede these points.
So why did Scalia send Wrotnowski to conference? Like Dave, I doubt that it’s to get a unanimous ruling on these challenges to Obama’s standing that will end all of the pointless legal battles. In any case, if Donofrio didn’t get four votes, there’s no reason to think that Wrotnowski will do any better — but it seems that Scalia and Thomas have made themselves the go-to guys on the court for all legal challenges to Obama’s election.
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
This man is an absolute @ss.
No more “Hot Air” visits for me.
I’m done, Ed.
Seems to me that now that FITZMAS is here, Obama’s first step toward federal prison on a political corruption charge should start with formal discovery that he wasn’t even born here ~ just another illegal alien.
This could all come to an end with Obama’s BC.
I don’t use language like that. I’d just say he’s an elitist.
Is that what I am? A “Birther”? Nice to know I have a kook name!!
Birther for life.
Hot Air = Spineless, unprincipled, Republican hacks
Actually, Hot Air is covering the story rather well.
“Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia,...”
Shouldn’t that tell this bonehead something. Ginsburg is a marxist hag who doesn’t care whether or not 0 was born in the US. Scalia cares about the constitution. This stupid article, rant, whatever assumes Scalia and Thomas are a couple of Neo-cons trying to overturn an election.
Gee, “birther”, what a complimentary nickname that is, and all this time I just considered myself a constitutional originalist.
No, no, no. For many around here the credo is: "You only agree with me 90% of the time. Therefore you are my enemy!"
Sure seems to be that way lately. If Cap’n ed was invited to Obama’s inaguration, he’d likely rent a tux and some kneepads to welcome in our first marxist (and potentially illegitimate) president.
or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider.
***That’s basically what I see. It’s an effective argument. How is it that I’m a wingnut if there’s 2 conservative supreme court justices who saw enough merit to have the cases forwarded to their colleagues? Are you calling Supreme Court justices wingnuts? Apparently the left wingers are, but I don’t think right wingers will.
Question for anyone who knows:
Are these conferences required for the Supreme Court to reject hearing a case?
From my understanding the answer is no.
It seems to me that it is a possible indication that there is interest in hearing this case if they had already had a conference on a similar case. Why would Justice Scalia bring this case to conference if they had already heard one and had no interest in hearing this case at all?
Just so that it wouldn’t get re-filed to another Jusitce?
The quickest way to bring this issue to a boiling point will occur only when the MSM demands BHO’s original B.C. I keep thinking back to the frothing media clamoring for GWB’s dental records...
The article says — “A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.”
—
Yep, that’s what the end result is, no matter which “side” of the Supreme Court looks at the issue. It sounds exactly like what they are doing, looking at and then — “Denied”...
That puts an *end* to a particular case and to refiling for that case. They’re busy *putting an end* to all these cases. The Supreme Court might be done with that task, by the time Obama is inaugurated ....
It’s like I’ve been saying all along — all those in positions of authority or even the ones that we have as our own candidates or leaders of our own party say that this is nothing and that Obama is going to be the next President of the United States...
From a previous post of mine...
So, you had better get ready for Obama for many years, because that is what is going to happen.
It’s the same thing that Rush Limbaugh has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Bush has decided is going to happen, the same thing that McCain has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Palin has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Republican Party has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Electoral College will decide is going to happen (being “packed” with “Obots”), the same thing that the controlling majority of Congress has decided is going to happen (being packed with Democrats), the same thing that the majority of the voting public has decided is going to happen (voted for Obama by a large margin), the same thing that the Supreme has apparently decided is going to happen (i.e., “Denied...”) — and so — why do you think it’s going to be different because you want to adhere to the Constitution?
And there you have it...
You said — “No more “Hot Air” visits for me.”
Pretty soon, all you’ll have left to visit — after you’ve eliminated all those conservative websites that know Obama is going to be the next President of the United States — are the liberal websites... LOL...
So we’re ‘birthers’ now. What a jerk this guy is , trying to get as close to ‘truthers’ as he can, verbally. Hot air, that’s all he offers.
What is the lesson that Ginsburg and Souter are sending?
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.