Seattle Homemaker Fined $13,000 For Doing Background Check On Obama

“A usurper installed 2 hench-women on our Supreme Court, and they are refusing to let the Supreme Court do what the Constitution specifically requires.”
__

Perhaps you know something about the Supreme Court that I don’t know, but this strikes me as complete nonsense.

It takes a certain number of votes (4 or 5, depending on the circumstances) for SCOTUS to agree to hear a case. If those votes are there, there’s nothing that Kagan or Sotomayor can do to block them.

Similarly, I have no power to prevent your thimblefull of water from touching the fire. You are failing entirely on your own.

Ah, that’s right. Obama was using taxpayer money to support his crimes by then. You’re right. Perkins-Coie was the company that had argued on behalf of the usurper BEFORE he was able to use my tax money to screw America. You’re so right.

Well, then, I guess that’s perfectly fine for Judge Carter to hire a clerk from Obama’s PREVIOUS eligibility-defending law firm, when he was in the middle of an eligibility lawsuit. Sort of like a judge hearing an EPA case against BP just sort of, in the middle of it, hiring a clerk from BP’s previous law firm. No appearance of impropriety there at all. Nuh-uh. None. You’re fine with that.

I get it.

I didn’t say it was unprecedented for there to be a meeting. I said it was unprecedented for the Chief Justice to INVITE Obama - and for him to do it on the very same day they were SUPPOSED to be giving Donofrio’s case a fair hearing on whether to address it (as the 20th Amendment REQUIRES, as I’ve pointed out on this thread). No problem inviting the owner of BP to come visit the office, on the same day as you decide not to hear a case against BP.... Again, no appearance of impropriety. Knowing that Berg’s case was coming down the pike and the “visit” as scheduled would be ex parte for that.... no problem.

I get it.

You are a lawyer. What seems crooked and stench-ridden to the rest of us seems like a walk in the park to you.

Now I at least understand the stink from this conversation that is gagging me. I still breathe free, and I still know a cowpie when I come across it. Bear in mind that the standard for judicial ethics is what people like me will perceive as stench. You may arrogantly write me off as a rube, but “appearance of impropriety” means what the unwashed masses perceive.

I noticed that you ignored the grand-daddy: Kagan and Sotomayor refusing to recuse themselves when specifically asked to do so because the case involved whether they could be Supreme Court justices. Just for kicks (and because I’ve got a barf-bag handy) why don’t you tell me why it’s OK for Kagan and Sotomayor to help decide whether a case to boot them out of office should make it to trial? Tell me how there’s really no problem with a judge deciding their own murder verdict while you’re at it.... Or do you deny that they did this?

Kagan and Sotomayor by their presence alter the number of votes that need to be there.

But you fail to address whether it is OK, in your eyes, for a judge to decide a case where her own job is the issue. That fine with you? Or a similar situation - should a judge sit on the panel deciding whether the murder case against her should move forward or be dropped?

And you also failed to answer why you are here. Are you trying to stop my thimble of water, or are you trying to add oil to the fire that is burning up this country? Why are you here, BigGuy who has only EVER posted on the eligibility issue ever since you joined Free Republic in July of 2009 - and only EVER posted in defense of all that has gone on to make sure that Obama’s eligibility is not allowed to have its day in court, on the merits?

Why are you here?

Before I even saw your post I had checked this out myself, found that I was mistaken, and corrected the error.

But I presume that you would have no problem with a judge in the middle of an EPA lawsuit against BP hiring a clerk from BP’s former law firm - and then suddenly and dramatically reversing his whole demeanor and rulings to be antagonistic towards the EPA instead of lenient/sympathetic.

To your nose everything would be smelling of roses after that, I’m sure. lol

I’m glad we can at least agree that it’s not Congress or the voters who are supposed to initiate this action between the certification of the electoral vote and the inauguration. The job of whoever is supposed to do this is to UNDO THE EFFECT OF AN ELECTION, so this is NOT a “political issue”, and whoever is supposed to do it has to be somebody with Constitutional authority (and actually according to the 20th Amendment a Constitutional OBLIGATION) to undo the effect of a nationwide election. That can’t be the legislative branch or the executive branch. What does that leave?

That leaves the judiciary.

Actually, there's nothing that can be done between the certification and the inauguration.

The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlines the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. 3 USC § 15 lays out the steps Congress must follow when counting the electoral votes. The ability of Congressmen to challenge the vote is contained in 3 USC § 15. That is the last place possible to challenge the eligibility of the candidates. Once the electoral votes are certified, as stated in the Twelfth Amendment: "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed..."

Ah, that’s right.

How about, "I'm sorry I got caught lying?"

Obama was using taxpayer money to support his crimes by then. You’re right. Perkins-Coie was the company that had argued on behalf of the usurper BEFORE he was able to use my tax money to screw America. You’re so right.

Please show me one eligibility case argued by Perkins Coie. I'm not aware of any, though it's conceivable I'm wrong.

Every federal district judge has two law clerks, and the rules of judicial ethics say that if one has a conflict, the other handles that particular case. It happens a hundred times a day, because big national law firms likely have some case or other before nearly every federal judge. Any other rule would mean that lawyers from big national firms could never be law clerks.

I didn’t say it was unprecedented for there to be a meeting. I said it was unprecedented for the Chief Justice to INVITE Obama -

No President has ever visited the justices except by the Chief Justice's invitation.

No problem inviting the owner of BP to come visit the office, on the same day as you decide not to hear a case against BP.... Again, no appearance of impropriety.

Remember when Scalia went hunting with Vice President Cheney while a case naming Cheney as a defendant was pending before the Court? (And I mean really "pending," as in cert. was already granted, not dead-listed like Berg's case.) Scalia denied the motion to recuse, saying that he hadn't discussed the case with Cheney on the hunting trip. I don't recall any screams of outrage from you then.

“Kagan and Sotomayor by their presence alter the number of votes that need to be there.”
__

I believe that to be incorrect. What Conservapedia says in their article on Certiorari (http://www.conservapedia.com/Certiorari) is:

‘The votes of only four out of nine Justices, not a majority (five out of nine), are required by the U.S. Supreme Court to “grant cert.” and thereby accept appeal of a case.’

If you have contrary information from a reliable source, please cite it. But in any case, it’s crystal clear that there have not been four votes to grant cert in any of the eligibility cases, since cert has never been granted for any of them, just as it’s clear that there’s been no movement on the part of the Republican-controlled House to initiate eligibility hearings.

In fact, since the Court has never even requested a response on any of these cases, it is indisputable fact that there was no interest among any of the justices to delve further into any of them, since it takes only one justice to initiate such a request. Your attempt to cast the blame on Kagan and Sotomayor has no basis in fact.

Oh, and it shouldn’t be necessary to say this, but I stop by from time to time because I enjoy participating in the discussions.

BTW, I don’t think you even understand what I am saying about these judges. I have said that I thought the more honorable among them put red flags out there to show that their decisions were made under duress.

I believe that Judge Carter is an honorable man. He started out wanting to get at the truth, and then in mid-stream everything changed. I believe he was threatened, just like Bush, McCain, Cheney, Roberts, etc were threatened. And I think he was honorable enough that he wanted the world to know he acted under duress, even if it meant he had to do something that would make himself look like a crook.

IOW, I am saying I believe that he deliberately created an appearance of impropriety because he is an honorable man and was willing to sacrifice his good reputation for the sake of the country. It is me - not you - who is believing in and affirming his honor. I believe he was told that the Soros communist-Islamist alliance would make another run on the bank if he didn’t do as he was told.

What he did is, in my theory, the same as a POW saying on videotape that his captors are treating him well (even though he knows it’s a lie). The most honoring way to handle that videotape is to recognize it as the propaganda it is and do everything in your power to free them from the hostage situation. That is my view and my goal.

This is what I believe happened with Bush, Cheney, etc. Part of my reason for believing that is because I DO think these are honorable men who love their country, and the way they would do what they have done is because they believed that the country would die if they didn’t; the country was taken hostage. Of course, they could all just be selfish jerks. Take your pick, but I believe - based on all the clues I know about - that they were threatened by a communist-Islamist collapse of the US economy.

I would dearly love to talk to Judge Carter and the others in a setting where they believed they were safe, and find out the truth.

Only in Heaven, if we’re all there. lol

It only takes the concurrence of four Justices to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to an Obama eligibility (or any other) appeal. The Supreme Court operates under the tradition of “The Rule of Four.” The votes of Kagan and Sotomayor can be irrelevant to the Cert Conference process on Obama eligibility (as are the votes of Breuer and Bader-Ginsberg) if the conservatives on the high court feel that one or more of the eligibility appeals that reached them raised serious enough constitutional issues.
The question remains, why haven’t Alito, Scalia, Thomas and either Kennedy or Roberts voted to grant “cert?”

You’re a lawyer. You know that “lying” means an intent to deceive, and if I had meant to deceive I would have acted like the rest of you do (with the exception of palmer, who did correct himself): I would have ignored the correction and changed the subject.

Bob Bauer of PErkins Coie argued eligibility cases. It’s conceivable that I’m wrong; I don’t feel like looking it up right now. I should be washing the dishes.

It’s been too long and too many computer attacks since I checked out the rules on judges hiring clerks, so I don’t have the supporting URL’s and I’m going from memory, but the hiring of clerks is not supposed to be handled by the judge.

Similar thing with the Presidents’ visits to the court. I know that the media CLAIMED that the Chief Justices had invited the other Presidents-elect but I did research looking at sources from before 2008 and that was not the case. Another instance of the story changing to benefit Obama. I’m sure I would not be able to find those sources again via Google and I can’t get my own notes and URL’s until I can figure out how to decompress and import my email files into Outlook Express.

I knew nothing about Scalia and Cheney’s hunting trip during a pending case. Did Scalia invite Cheney? On the same day as he was supposed to deliberate whether to hear Cheney’s case?

LL, it’s clear to me that we are getting nowhere with each other. You will continue to think what you think and I will continue to think what I do unless somebody points out evidence otherwise. You will not touch the 20th Amendment with a 20-foot pole, and that is where the non-political nature of this issue is revealed. At least BigGuy had the integrity to admit that he doesn’t know who is supposed to enforce the 20th Amendment. As a lawyer you can’t really claim that, I suppose, so you have to evade it altogether. Which is what the courts have done and it stinks to high heaven.

You don’t mind the stink. I do. Let’s leave it at that.

This was discussed here on FR and yes, there was a credible source that said the number went down to 3 if there were only 7 justices (As the source you gave said, a majority is not required, and when there are 7 justices 4 is a majority). It was a legal textbook, IIRC. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, my computers have been trashed multiple times and the notes I kept for myself are inaccessible right now. But it was discussed here on FR and yes, there was a credible source which said it went down to 3. And I believe the Chief Justice has the discretion of moving the number down to 3 as well, though I’d have to see the source again to know for sure.

So far none of you guys are willing to address the question of whether a justice should be able to decide whether a case challenging her own job moves forward. You’re stonewalling and evading instead. I don’t know about you, but my time is too precious to waste on evasions and boxing the air. If you’ve got a point, make it. If not, don’t waste my time. You won’t deny that you’re trying to put oil on the fire that’s burning up America, though that should be a no-brainer for somebody who loves America, so a logical presumption is that that’s what you’re here to do.

If the only point you have is “NYEAH!! YOU LOSE!” then I don’t have time for childish games. My daughter is coming home and I have housework to do. I can at least still do that. Will probably be doing that when the economic collapse or EMP comes. lol

Because Roberts is compromised, for whatever reason. Some believe it’s because of the adoption of his kids. I believe it is because he was told the Soros communist-Islamist alliance would collapse the US economy if he didn’t keep SCOTUS at bay on eligibility, and now here recently, on Obamacare.

What is obvious to everybody is that there were shenanigans at the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare and Roberts changed his opinion, angering the other justices who had formed the majority opinion until Roberts changed his mind. Roberts’ opinion got a scathing rebuttal. There is definitely discord on the court, and it’s not between conservatives and liberals; it’s between the conservatives/middle-of-the-roader and the Chief Justice.

BTW, before the Obamacare decision came down I predicted that it would be this way and it would be Roberts who biffed it. I made that prediction based on the theory regarding the Soros threats. Based on previous actions by Roberts I had believed that he was the one who was compromised.

I made similar predictions regarding the Malihi decision, although for one brief evening I believed I might have been wrong. We celebrated the existence of one honest judge. And then the next day came and we remembered that justice is just a pipe dream in Obama’s America.

Another thing too. Somebody in the MSM (can’t remember who) reported that Roberts was red-eyed and obviously hating every moment when he read the Obamacare decision.

Not a doubt in the minds of most people here that he was acting under duress. The immediate question was what the threat was. I was the one who said I thought Roberts was under duress long before this evidence of it ever came so visibly to the public eye.

In any event, Roberts has demonstrated that he will change his mind to make a decision contrary to what he believes (according to his own written opinion), but that he doesn’t seem to enjoy it at all. More reasons for me to suspect that the invitation to Obama on the same day as the Donofrio conference and the botching of the public oath of office were his ways of fighting back in what small symbolic way he could, to raise red flags.

In any event, if he can be coerced on Obamacare then he can also be coerced on eligibility conferences.

The 20th Amendment clearly says that if the President elect fails to qualify by Jan 20th they shall not act as President. Doesn’t matter if that President elect becomes the President at noon on Jan 20th or not; they cannot ACT as President until they have qualified.

Who enforces the requirement that the non-qualified President not “act as President”? There has to be somebody; if it wasn’t possible to happen - if nobody had the power to enforce it - then it wouldn’t be a specific requirement of the US Constitution.

If you believe that it can’t be done then you must be misunderstanding the Constitution because the 20th Amendment clearly says not only that it CAN be done but that it MUST be done. The President elected by the people and certified by the Congress MUST be kept from “acting as President” if he fails to qualify by the time the term starts. And SOMEBODY has the responsibility of making sure he is stopped from “acting as President” according to the 20th Amendment.

Who?

"If you’ve got a point, make it."
__

I thought I had, but I'll try again. Your claim that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor were influential in the decisions of SCOTUS to bypass birther cases is ludicrous and unfounded, as the facts clearly show.

The research isn't hard to do. Here, in alphabetical order by original filing, are the first few birther cases that were submitted to SCOTUS:

Anderson v. Obama (No. 10-612) -- no response requested, case deadlisted, petition denied, motion for rehearing denied.

Keyes et al v. Obama (No. 11-1225) -- no response requested, case deadlisted, petition denied.

Berg v. Obama et al (No. 08A391) -- application denied by Justice Souter; application for injunction denied by Justice Souter; application denied by Justice Kennedy; application submitted to Justice Scalia, referred to full Court, no response requested, case deadlisted, application denied.

Beverly v. FEC (No. 09-794) -- no response requested, case deadlisted, petition denied.

Craig v. United States (No. 08-10817) -- no response requested, case deadlisted, petition denied.

Donofrio v Wells (No. 08A407) -- application denied by Justice Souter; application submitted to Justice Thomas, referred to full Court, no response requested, case deadlisted, application denied.

Farrar et al. v. Obama, Sec’y of State (No. 12A25) -- application denied by Justice Thomas; petition for cert submitted, referred to full Court, no response requested, case deadlisted, petition denied; petition for rehearing filed, rehearing denied.

As you can see, the cases have been denied by every single Justice who's ruled on them, including Scalia and Thomas; and, most important, when the cases were referred to the full Court, not a single Justice showed enough interest to request a response, resulting in their being placed immediately on the deadlist.

Since each Justice gets to decide on his or her own whether to request a response, these facts prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the recusal of the two Obama appointees could not have had any influence on the outcome. You are looking for enemies to blame, but you seem oblivious to the fact that every Justice on the Supreme Court has treated the birther cases in precisely the same way. There's simply no sense in trying to single out Kagan and Sotomayor.

Read the rest of the sentence in Section Three of the 20th Amendment:
“and the CONGRESS may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President,...”

The 12th Amendment gives the power to Congress to count, certify and object to the certification of the votes of the electors. Objections that are not resolved by January 20th would mean that the President-elect and/or the Vice President-elect has/ have not yet qualified.
An example of such a scenario might be ongoing legal disputes over which electors’ votes should be counted and certified in one or more states that have not been resolved by Inauguration Day.

The President elected by the people and certified by the Congress MUST be kept from “acting as President” if he fails to qualify by the time the term starts. And SOMEBODY has the responsibility of making sure he is stopped from “acting as President” according to the 20th Amendment.

Who?

Interesting question. I know you're looking to the Supreme Court, but it seems that the Constitution confines all the presidential election actions to Congress. It's hard to see how the Supreme Court could justify their intrusion without being accused of the most extreme version of judicial activism possible (i.e. negating the votes of the majority of the electorate). At least with Congress you're looking at 535 elected officials. But if all you need is a simple majority of the Supreme Court, i.e., five individuals, to overturn a national elections, well, like a said, I have a hard time envisioning that that was what the Constitution had in mind. I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I'd be interested in hearing what a constitutional lawyer would have to say about 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.