Case motion for recusal of Sotomayor and Kagan "Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make 'unthinkable' the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to 'be' president the issue has not gone away," Hemenway said.
"Instead it has steadily grown in the awareness of the public. Should we be surprised that he shows no respect for the constitutional rule of law? What else would we expect?" he wrote.
The U.S. Supreme Court today did not respond to WND questions today about whether the two justices would participate in the conference, and there was no response to WND's request that questions be forwarded to the justices themselves about their plans.
"The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter."
That the justices are "avoiding" the Obama issue already has been confirmed by one member of the court. It was last year when Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before a U.S. House subcommittee that the issue arose.
Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897#ixzz1EFkrwg3Y
No, that's not accurate. Thomas said they were "evading" it. "Avoiding" something means stepping aside or dodging to avoid an accident. "Evading" means leans more to being sneaky and side stepping the issue. Thomas isn't stupid. Thomas used the correct word - evading.