Hollister v. Soetoro/Obama eligibility case to be reconsidered by Supreme Court

examiner.com Phoenix ^ | Linda Bentley

[freepersup]

WASHINGTON – On Dec. 30, 2010, the day after Hollister v. Soetoro, challenging the constitutional eligibility of President Barack Obama, was docketed for the Jan. 14, 2011 conference of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), retired USAF Col. Gregory Hollister’s Attorney John Hemenway filed a motion for justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both appointed by Obama, to recuse themselves.

[DarthVader]

They must be deconstructed too and sent to Siberia.

[rolling_stone]

I think they have to be recused Hemenways motion was not heard/denied thus should be granted..we shall see...

[Danae]

I thihnk it might be different in SCOTUS, the justices are ethically bound to recuse themselves, BUT.... I don’t think they HAVE to. I seem to remember that it’s up the each justice.

Do you really think Kagen - even though she was on some certification cases FOR Obummer - or sotomayor are going to voluntarily recuse themselves? I have zero faith that they will. None what so ever.

I want to be wrong. More than I can possibly put into words. But I don’t think I am.

[vharlow]

It would also open the door for Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. No matter what they decide, they should just do it! One way or the other, there’s no trust in government anymore anywhere that I can determine. And that includes the Supremes.

[Don Corleone]

Don’t get too excited. The SCOTUS will kick this out just like every other eligibility case that has reached them. They are avoiding this issue like the plague.

IMHO this is what that meeting between Obama and the SCOTUS that was featured here on FR some time back was all about. He was lining up the SCOTUS to avoid a confrontation over his eligibility. Also, I'll bet he took his oath of office in a non traditional manner after the so called "flubbed" oath on inauguration day. Just MHO.

[Georgia Girl 2]

“what if they say, dual nationality...this would open the flood gates for people, who hate America, to become President”

Yes its a risk. At some point they are going to have to define Natural Born Citizen. I would rather that they take it up while we have pretty much a conservative court. I would feel even better if Ginsberg can hold on til 2012 and we get a Republican president to appoint 1 additional conservative justice.

[ecinkc]

I think I would feel a little encouraged if they did not decide to recuse themselves. As I see it, there are roughly three plausible outcomes:

1. At least one BHO appointee recuses herself and the case is granted further review.
2. At least one recuses hereself, but the case is still denied.
3. No recusals happen and the case is denied.

Of these, I definitely can't muster much hope that option #1 would occur. If option #3 occurs, as I think you're expecting (but not wanting), that would at least give me some hope that there's a good chance that 3 justices really would be willing to take up the case if given the chance.

I'm dreading, but honestly somewhat expecting option #2 in which the two BHO appointees will go ahead and recuse themselves and yet the case will still be denied. That would ever so disheartening.

Nevertheless, given the way everything else has gone, I fear that the only reason this case is scheduled for conference again is just so they can 'cross Ts and dot Is' to keep us nuts on the fringe from finding yet another technicality that would allow us to send it back through the system again.

Like you, I desperately hope I'm wrong about that, but I hate it when people get in frenzy and say thing like "In a stunning development, the Supreme Court has reversed its earlier decision and now wants to look at the Hemmenway case again. They've but it back on the conference schedule! That must mean they're going to give the case a hearing for sure this time!!"

Not quite so likely, I'm afraid, folks.

[Munz]

I hope this is more successful than the last cases brought.
I wouldn’t count on kagan or sotomayor vacating their ring side seats either.

If he is ineligible ... do their appointments stand?

[K-Stater]

Will the usurper's appointees recuse themselves THIS time?

Why? Do you expect them to vote to hear the case?

This is not a majority vote. The case is taken up by the entire court if four justices vote to hear it. Five justices can vote against it but as long as the other 4 vote for it then it advances. Kagan and Sotomayor voting or not voting, that doesn't change.

[jamese777]

Recussals by Sotomayor and Kagan (and no votes by Bader-Ginsberg and Breyer) are irrelevant to moving this appeal to a hearing before the full court.
It takes FOUR votes (the rule of four) to grant a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, which is Supreme Courtese for “yes, we’ll hear your case.” There are five Justices appointed by Republican Presidents: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.
Sotomayor and Kagan are not needed.

[freepersup]

Is this the first time that a formal motion's been made to recuse the conflicted appointees? It was ethically up to both of them to recuse themselves voluntarily in the previous cases where they were seen as having a conflict of interest and they failed the test miserably. Filth. I can see these two spurious ‘Justices’ recusing themselves only if they know that there is not a majority on the Court with the heart to move the eligibility issue forward. If, they do recuse themselves and there are then five Justices remaining, is the majority now only three (required) to grant certiorari? This could be a crack in the armor, and a primary reason why they would not recuse themselves.

[ecinkc]

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he'll go away.

[freepersup]

Perhaps I have the proverbial cart before the horse... would a recusal come before a vote to grant certiorari? If so, and it’s a big if so, does the majority threshold remain at 4, even though there are now just 5 Justices voting? Or does the majority shift to 3?

[devattel]

This is the right observation for the acceptance of the case. However, they can influence the final decision should it be accepted.

If the rumor is correct with regards to the number of members who want to address this case, I am going to assume it is Alito, Scalia, and Thomas who are the ones who want to resolve the issue. Roberts would have to admit he suspected a problem when he swore Obama in and did nothing to address it. Kennedy is most likely sitting on the fence.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Colonel Hollister: Obama’s Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants Comes Back as “Fail” and “SSN Not in File (Never Issued)”

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/02/colonel-gregory-hollister-obamas-social.html#comment-form

[jamese777]

Word to the wise: Ignore post number 30 and its author on these threads. He attempts to further his agenda on this issue with half-truths, double speak and fallacious arguments. This has been demonstrated numerous times by a broad consensus of eligibility-interested freepers. Ignore him and perhaps he’ll go away.

---

Word to the intelligent: there’s no need to take my word for anything. Read about “the rule of four” for yourself and then decide.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5124615_role-supreme-court-justices.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-rule-of-four.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/history_cases.html

[freepersup]

cross link to similar topic/thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2675653/posts

[devattel]

This filing is excellent. If for no other reason, the courts must investigate this identity fraud perpetrated by the usurping “president”.

Thank you Mike.

[freepersup]

Brief bio about the reporter/author of the thread source article. She works for the Maricopa County CRIME Examiner.

Linda Bentley is an award-winning investigative reporter for Sonoran News in Cave Creek, Ariz. As a transplant from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Catalina Island, her background is as diverse as the places she's lived and the topics she covers. While she still dabbles with tile setting, etched glass, graphics and more, her articles on a variety of local and national subjects can be found weekly at SonoranNews.com. Contact Linda at LDBentley@gmail.com

[freepersup]

Questions at posts 31 and 33. Your thoughts?