Justice Thomas: 'The court is 'avoiding' the Natural Born Citizen question.

CSPAN ^ | April 15,2010 | CSPAN

[penelopesire]

A curious thing happened in the Supreme Court budget hearing yesterday. Rep. Joe Serrano went on a long monologue about 'diversity' in the court and even said he would be glad when the day came, that a Puerto Rican could be president...to which Thomas replied that the court was avoiding that question. Nervous laughter ensues and the topic is quickly dropped. I'd like to know what my fellow FReepers think of the exchange.

It happens around the 1:13-1:14:10 mark in the video. It would be great if someone could isolate that exchange and put it on YouTube so everyone could hear it without sitting through the entire hearing.

[Candor7]

Justoce Thomas canmot say much , but look at the activity of Mrs. Thomas. I would love to see a plaintiff with standing before Justice Thomas. It would prove very interesting.

Clarence is sending a message without sending a message. He is lettinng us know.BRING IT!!!!!

[BP2]

>If 4 justices agreed to hear it, the case would have gone to trial. Thus we know that 3 or fewer justices thought it right to hear the case. It is a safe bet that they didn’t refuse because it was trivial...

Only in your pea brain, Mr Rogers.

Political Question ... does that term even mean anything to you?

Have you a clue? REALLY?!

The High Court Justices of the Judicial Branch's Supreme Court are understandably VERY reluctant to stand up and say "NO" to the candidates of a Presidential election, and the Executive Branch of the winner thereafter. The stakes are VERY high and have FAR-REACHING consequences.

Where were you in 2000, when for more than a month, there was NO clear-cut Presidential winner? Three of the SCOTUS Justices in the infamous December 12th SCOTUS decision actually deemed that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution! Believe me ... those memories are quite indelible in the minds of the SCOTUS Justices, especially those benching in 2000.

Considering the Democratic rancor emanating after the SCOTUS's per curiam ruling on Bush v. Gore, preceding Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, I'm surprised the concept of the SCOTUS' reluctance to rule against the Eligibility of a SITTING Executive is lost on you.

[thouworm]

great find Penelopesire; here’s a tidbit on Serrano that may explain just one of the reasons Thomas is taking the opportunity for some gentlemanly sparring
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New York Rep. Jose Serrano Pushes To Repeal 22nd Amendment
January 14, 2009 · 9 Comments

For those that do not know, the 22nd Amendment is the only amendment that establishes a term limit for a federal office and that office is the presidency. Congress passed the amendment after Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency to restrict future presidents from seeking a third term. The failed New Deal is what I believe is the main reason.

Now New York Representative Jose Serrano is pushing to have that amendment repealed – and we all know why.

Talk about jumping the gun. Perhaps Serrano should wait and see what kind of a first term Barack Obama gives us before he decides to make Obama Dictator-for-life.

The bill that was introduced is HJ Res 5. It does not have a co-sponsor as of yet and let us hope it stays that way.

http://freedomswings.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/new-york-rep-jose-serrano-pushes-to-repeal-22nd-amendment/

[thouworm]

posting while you were posting — FYI ping to post #82

[STARWISE]

Thanks. Serrano is a street smart, slick partisan
operator .. always has been.

[Cicero]

Exactly. SCOTUS stepped in and did the right thing on the AlGore Chad scam and SCOFLAw. But they got an immense amount of heat for it.

When a similar illegality arose later that year in New Jersey, where the state Supreme Court illegally inserted Lautenberg on the ballot after the legal deadline had passed, SCOTUS decided to punt.

You could argue that that was more of a state matter than the Florida affair, even if the court decided it illegally. Or you could argue that they just didn’t want to take the heat twice in a row for a political decision.

[thouworm]

Snopes says Serrano has introduced such a bill every year since 1997, for a total of seven times -— as has Steny Hoyer, Barney Frank, Drier, Nadler

persistence...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

[esquirette]

He also says to the committee chair, who was fishing for a nomination to the supreme court, “You don’t even have to be born here. We don’t ask you that.”

Thomas is a smart guy.

[Faith]

Excellent find, penelopesire. Inch by inch we move toward the turning point . . .

[plenipotentiary]

“Yes, and that 6 to 3 outcome was exactly what Thomas says it was. The Court was evading and will continue to evade the question.”

Isn’t it the case that someone who knows a wrong has been done but refuses to report it or try it is also guilty of a criminal offense?

“Misprision of treason, in the words of Blackstone, “ consists in the bare knowledge and concealment of treason, without any degree of assent thereto, for any assent makes the party a principal traitor.” According to Bracton, de Corond, seq. 118, failure to reveal the treason of another was in itself high treason, but statutes of 1551-1552 and 1554-1555 made concealment of treason misprision only. Most of the statutes regulating procedure on trials for treason also apply to misprision of treason. The punishment is loss of the profit of the lands of the offender during life, forfeiture of all his goods and imprisonment for life. These punishments are not affected by the Forfeiture Act 1870.

Misprision of felony is the concealment of a felony committed by another person, but without such previous concert with, or subsequent assistance of the offender, as would make the concealer an accessory before or after the fact. The offence is a misdemeanour punishable on indictment by fine and imprisonment.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprison

It’s time the demurring Supremes and the silent Politicos are led away in shackles.

[Canedawg]

“We’re evading that one”

it’s clear what he’s referring to. But then he laughed it off, so it is impossible to infer that he has any frustration about it.

Now, the question is: WHY are they evading it?

[plenipotentiary]

“Now, the question is: WHY are they evading it?”

Because the USA is a young nation, and the Repubs don’t want another Civil War, and The Commie/Dems trade on that.

[Badray]

You have it backwards.

The US is a Kenyan territory. ;-)

[BP2]

Exactly. SCOTUS stepped in and did the right thing on the AlGore Chad scam and SCOFLAw. But they got an immense amount of heat for it.

In 2008, many Dems considered Obama's win as PAYBACK for Bush "stealing" the 2000 election from Gore.

Imagine ... just imagine ... the UPROAR from the Left if the SCOTUS had ruled AGAINST the British Subject's Eligibility during the MSM's 2008 slobbering lovefest of Barack Obama — once again "stealing" victory from the Democrats; in 2008, no less than from the FIRST-ever Black president.

Generically-speaking, in such a situation the stakes would naturally get progressively higher and higher as a questionable presidential candidate weaves through his Party's Convention nomination in August, leading up to the November Election and January Inauguration. Unfortunately, that's why the "natural-born Citizen" issue was never resolved back in 1968 following Gov. George Romney's — born of TWO American parents in the Mormon colonies in Mexico — failure to grab the GOP's Presidential nomination on August 5-8, 1968. A case was being built by his opposition, but later dropped because George Romney was no longer a threat.

I'm sure such hurdles were being purposefully-tracked and navigated by Obama and his attorneys in 2008 — exploiting Standing and Political Question all the way through — until his Inauguration, where Obama assumed that he would then become more protected and Untouchable. Later as we recall, the Arrogant One would go so far as to publicly chide the SCOTUS in his 2010 State of the Union address ... about the only Governmental body that could undo him because of his in-Eligible status.

Remember, too, that many Conservative were SHAMED, so far as to NOT even use Obama's middle name of HUSSEIN, until Obama decided in December 2008 to use it for his Oath of Office on January 20 (and Jan 21).

Conservatives were PLAYED in 2008 — hopefully they've since learned how to effectively fight against the Left's use of SHAME & GUILT in playing the RACE CARD as a political weapon.

I've observed that Court's resistance to Political Question cases generally fades away when Political Capital has been spent and a politician's popularity is fleeting. We've seen that time and time again with Executives like Nixon, Bill Clinton, Blago and others. The reality is that Judges and Prosecutors generally do NOT like to butt heads with a popular Executive.

Considering Obama's currently plummeting popularity numbers, it's far more likely that the SCOTUS would find it more palatable to resolve this issue regarding Obama's Eligibility, as well as set Precedence for other presidential candidates appearing on ballots at some point in the future.

[SaraJohnson]

Let’s just have the Supreme court just cash in the constitution so liberals won’t burn down the country.

[butterdezillion]

So the court of public opinion does in some way affect the judicial courts?

[penelopesire]

Serrano reminds me this guy:

[mojitojoe]

NO, they are NOT U.S. territories. I don't think a Peurto Rican is a natural born citizen either. Unless they make it a states, and they are born when it was a state. But what the hell, we have a Kenyan Marxist, might as well invite them all to run. Who's next? A Palestinian?

[penelopesire]

“WHY are they evading it?”

It has to be the threat of a civil war and/or violence...or perhaps they are afraid to bring it up with a democrat controlled congress?

[mojitojoe]

They all looked very uncomfortable when he said it, lots of shifting around in chairs and pained looks on their faces. A very odd statement and very odd reactions. My take on it is that they all know, they are just going to wait it out and hope he loses in 2012 and they don’t have to deal with it.