Posted on 01/11/2013 4:44:07 AM PST by voicereason
To prevent duplication, please do not alter the published headline, thx.
Thanks. I’m aware of Malloy’s call for mass killing of birthers, etc.
I consider the source. He’s an ass.
I have never been directly called a “Birther” but if someone wants to use it toward me as a pejorative that’s okay.
My response will be to ask them three questions:
1. Why is it that EVERY young American upon entering the United States Military is subjected to an Entrance National Agency Check (ENTNAC)?
2. Why is it that US Military Officers, usually above the grade/rate O-3, are subjected to a Special Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) in order to work on operational projects?
3. How can a man such as Obama rise to the level of “Commander In Chief” and appropriate authorities not know that he was not Constitutionally Eligible for that responsibility or that of President?
Maybe the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that it’s really not good for the country if half the country believes their President is a fraud — not good at all.
Instead of being a shot across the bow, I pray it’s a full spread of torpedoes below the water line. I hope it sinks the usurper. Alas, though, it won’t.
How does one contact Malloy to let him know that the HI state registrar has certified a letter of verification which confirms that Obama’s HI BC is legally non-valid?
It says application for review will be seen by all justices,does say anything about hearing the case
Indeed, I am arguing with idiots.
That's correct.
The Constitution mandates certain requirements for national political office.
Whether one meets those requirements for the office they seek/hold, is hardly a political issue.
Ne disrespect meant by this, but I will judge that for myself.
That inner conflict, eh?
Those who have facts to argue usually argue them; those who don’t usually resort to ad hominems.
Based on the info below, it appears that it was out-right refused by Kennedy and accepted for conference by Roberts. So if nothing else, there is a minor victory here:
Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
So of the 10,000 petitions for certiorori, how many are refused out-of-hand and how many are referred to conference. I would suppose the number that reach conference are significantly below the 10K number you suggest...
Butter -
Is it true that Obama and his “legal team” have NEVER brought into evidence, in any legal proceeding, his birth certificate or COLB or any other proof of birth? I seem to remember that this was done by the plaintiffs in Georgia and Florida but I don’t believe Obama’s people have ever offered it up in a court of law. And even in the cases where the plaintiffs have brought it forward, I don’t know that it was ever admitted as evidence...
It’s never been admitted as evidence.
There was one case, I think with Judge David Carter presiding, where Obama’s counsel asked the judge to “notice” that Factcheck claimed to have seen the real physical short-form. That was the closest Obama’s people ever came to presenting ANY evidence. At least as far as I know, but I haven’t kept up on all the lawsuits very well.
we have run out of the soap box and the ballot box this maybe last chance at jury box before the cartridge box...if we the people dont have standing to challenge our President we have nothing....we are subjects not citizens.
This wasn’t admitted as evidence, either.
http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/04/15/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
Distributed for Conference at the Supreme Court of the United StatesPublished on October 25, 2012 by Roy I. Liebman, Esq.
Filed under Supreme Court of the United StatesEvery petition that is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court, and remains on the docket, will eventually be distributed for a conference, usually held on a Friday. The date of the conference depends upon whether or not the Court is in session, in recess or on vacation. (There were 39 conferences during the 2011 Term.) Does this mean the Court will discuss each petition distributed during their conference? Absolutely not! Although this is a very closely guarded secret, I would estimate that, at best, only 20-25% of the petitions distributed for a given conference are actually discussed during that conference and few, if any, of those discussed, are granted. Those which aren’t discussed, become automatically denied.
The process is quite simple. Each week of the year, the clerk’s office distributes petitions, due for distribution to the justices’ chambers, for a conference, which is generally held, if the Court is in session, 2½ weeks later. Each chamber receives a copy of each petition. However, in 1972, the Court instituted a pooling system whereby each justice, who participates in the pool, is only responsible for his or her proportionate number of petitions distributed. Currently, eight justices participate in the pool, so his or her chambers are only responsible for 1/8th of the petitions and the 9th justice (currently Justice Alito) is responsible for reviewing all petitions distributed. For those justices participating in the pool, the petitions are read by one of the four law clerks typically found in each of the justices’ chambers. Each of them writes a memo as to each petition he or she read that summarizes the petition with a recommendation as to whether or not the petition is cert-worthy. These pool memos are then distributed to the participating justices. Prior to the conference, the Chief Justice circulates a “discuss list” containing any petitions he deems worthy of further discussion. Each justice can add to the list any petition he or she deems worthy. Very few, if any, petitions on the discuss list are granted. The remaining petitions, as I have stated, are automatically denied.
end snip, more at link
Oh, and here's another tax...
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.