Posted on 12/18/2008 1:39:29 PM PST by Sorry screen name in use
12/18/08 - URGENT NOTICE False rumors are circulating Justice Kennedy denied our Application for an Injunction to Stay Electoral Vote Count by Congress on January 8, 2009. However, our Writ of Certiorari is still pending and is now scheduled for Conference before U.S. Supreme Court on January 9, 2009.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamacrimes.com ...
Do you think they will hear it? I am not optimistic but I get sick on the naysayers here teling us to move on.
Everything I see is like a rolling snowball...just keeps rolling and collecting more and getting bigger and bigger.
Will it explode when it hits the tree at the bottom of the hill??? One can only hope and hope it doesn’t explode all over the American people..which I fear it will. sigh...
Do you believe in the theory of a parallel universe, it may happen there but not here!!! If you do you have been watching to much star gate.
I think we know Thomas and Scalia want to defend the Constitution. I was expecting more from Roberts and Scalia. Maybe they will suprise me but it seems like corruption is the way of the USA these days.
LOL... :-)
You asked — “Why hasn’t Berg simply asked Justice Kennedy for a subpoena for the vault copy or in the alternative taken a subpoena request to the Federal District for Hawaii and gotten a Federal (not Hawaii state judge) to issue a subpoena for the vault copy?”
I think it’s because Berg is busy with the case about the 9/11 attack and how Bush was involved in it... I mean, that takes up a lot of time to show that Bush was involved in the attack on the Towers (and Pentagon). Being a 9/11 Truther is not a job Berg can slack off on...
OR..., it could be because Berg *also* represent Chief Editor Korir of the African Press International in trying to get out the Michelle Obama tape recording where Obama’s wife basically admits that he’s not a natural born citizen. Berg has officially said that he was representing ole “Chief Editor Korir” so depending on where the Chief Editor is hiding out now, it could be a busy time for Berg...
Other than that — I don’t know what other tin-foil hat issues that Berg is working on...
You asked — “Will the SCOTUS use their Time Machine after there January 9th conference.”
Well..., if nothing else, the Supreme Court of the United States will certainly dismiss all these cases as moot, after Obama is sworn in, as *only* the Congress can do anything to remove Obama from office at that time.
Of course, I wouldn’t be holding my breath that Congress will do anything about Obama... :-)
I love it!
My hubby is into Japanese anime. He says ROR (or Raughing out Roud)
If Obama was born in Kenya, he would have a DS-1350 on file at the State Department. File a FOIA to obtain that DS-1350.
It is a sorry day when posters on Free Republic want to ignore a constitutional issue because pursuing it makes us look bad.
You said — “It is a sorry day when posters on Free Republic want to ignore a constitutional issue because pursuing it makes us look bad.”
Pursue it in a way that is going to work. This way is not working, unfortunately. There is another way.
That other way is to work for state laws in which the Secretary of State must vet a Presidential Candidate, having him prove that he meets the Constitutional requirements for being in office, or else he will not be placed on the ballot and no Electoral College vote can be for him...
That’s how to correct the *defective process* that we have right now, in vetting the candidate...
Everyone has been bought off. This whole system is so corrupt. It won’t change until -
No. 08-570 | ||||
Title: |
|
|||
Docketed: | October 31, 2008 | |||
Lower Ct: | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
Case Nos.: | (08-4340) |
Rule 11 |
~~~Date~~~ | ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
Oct 30 2008 | Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) |
Oct 31 2008 | Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. |
Nov 3 2008 | Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. |
Nov 3 2008 | Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. |
Nov 18 2008 | Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed. |
Dec 1 2008 | Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson. |
Dec 8 2008 | Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. |
Dec 9 2008 | Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter. |
Dec 15 2008 | Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
Dec 17 2008 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009. |
Dec 17 2008 | Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy. |
I’m not saying to set aside the Constitution, but bringing up lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit and getting it repeatedly turned down by court after court after court is somewhere between insanity and self-destruction.
For all the lawsuits against Slick Willie back in the 90s, where did it get us? All it got us was a guarantee that, when we got someone with an “R” on their party recognition, the same crap came at us, and NOTHING GETS ACCOMPLISHED! Hell, Ronald Reagan himself couldn’t have done a thing with all the crap that Soros and his willing accomplishes in the DBM were pulling.
If you ask me, let’s solve the REAL problems. Even if one of these suits works and Obama-lini gets tossed on his ear, we’d have Biden-mytime at the head of the hydra, but we’d still have a hydra nonetheless.
Good suggestion.
Wrong. Unless you fight them - they will walk all over you. By fighting and showing people the Constitution is there for a reason tehn some of them might wak up. Maybe you might wake up or shame SCOTUS into defending the Constitution.
The other problem is the Obama MSM. The only way you battle that is get millions of conservatives to cancel cable TV. Does it sound silly? No. The NY Times, and all the other papers are on their last legs. What killed newspapers - the Internet and conservatives fed up with reading propaganda.
The Libs want the fairness doctrine and it is being pushed by House members. We boycott companies in their districts. Money talks. We have economic power. We are fed up with corruption. By being meek, not speaking out and not fighting they will just keep on walking all over us.
So until someone has a concrete plan then get off the “let’s move on” speech.
If incontrovertible evidence came to light that showed Obama was not eligible, civil war would be unavoidable. Even if Congress would have the Constitutional authority to choose someone else, any selection they could make would be seen as illegitimate by a very large percentage of the population. The Supreme Court is not going to undertake any action that would produce such a result. It simply isn't going to happen.
The remedy that would best honor the Constitution, and have the best chance of averting civil war, would be to require that Obama provide prima facie evidence of eligibility. Since the state of Hawaii claims to have his birth records, the Court should state that Obama will be deemed eligible for office as soon as the state of Hawaii states officially and unequivocally that he was born there. Obama is free to authorize the release of that information whenever he sees fit; if January 20 comes without him having authorized the release, Biden would serve as Acting President but Barack would remain President-Elect, able to serve as soon as the state confirms his eligibility.
Under that scenario, Barack could be kept out of the White House without his ineligibility ever having to be exposed. Rather than being declared "ineligible", he would be "not eligible yet", and given clear instructions how to become eligible. Any delay beyond that point would be purely Barack's own decision.
This case might “grow some legs” since Obama failed to answer the Writ.
http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244
I nominate this post for the Unintentional Ironic Headline Of The Day Award.
The Supreme Court is an appellate court. They don't take evidence or hear trials, and the Supreme Court rules therefore give them no power to issue subpoenas. Even when they hear a case-- and they hear only the ones 4 Justices vote to hear-- they only review the legal resoning of the court below.
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.