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