Supremes to Conference on Obama Eligibility

drkatesview ^ | March 3, 2011 | drkate

[Hotlanta Mike]

The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court. As you recall, the judge in this case deemed Hollister’s case frivolous as Obama’s eligibility had been ‘twittered’ and thus resolved. He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges have.

[Arrowhead1952]

I think O’Conner must have forgotten to take her meds that day. BTW, that pic you posted at #13 made me LOL.

[Fantasywriter]

I expect to have another update before it’s over, but meantime it looks like the Urinal and Constipation [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] got yet another story wrong. Surprise, surprise, their error wildly favors the Dems/lefties. Who’d a guessed?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2683383/posts?page=24#24

[advertising guy]

are you freepin nuts ?

Michelle is so fat, if she had a flesh eatin disease, she’d live to be 92

[Hotlanta Mike]

I expect to have another update before it’s over, but meantime it looks like the Urinal and Constipation [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] got yet another story wrong. Surprise, surprise, their error wildly favors the Dems/lefties. Who’d a guessed?

---

Lefty propaganda...opiate for the Ozombies.

[Fantasywriter]

Look on the bright side. Now we know where the Site Pest goes to get his ‘news’ - from far left fish wraps with a reputation for inaccuracy that is only exceeded by their reputation for bias.

More indication that the SP isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

[Texas Fossil]

Bump.

That is an eviction I would help with.

[Scanian]

I’m quite sure he has. But it takes 4, so I hope recent events will convince the “Sphinx” to try to rev up the rest of the conservatives (well, Republicans anyway) to hear it.

I think the idiot libs actually think they can get Thomas to resign through harassment tactics.

[Foolsgold]

Yea’butt, how’d you get his charming, overweight wife out of there?

[Texas Fossil]

For over 2 years I have dreamed of seeing him evicted in handcuffs.

[txhurl]

Point taken, we’re gonna need a D9.

[Dr. Sheldon Cooper]

Yea’butt, how’d you get his charming, overweight wife out of there?

Put a Twinkie in a snare just outside the back door.

Boing!

Got her.

[bushpilot1]

[edge919]

Wow, that thing needs its own Area Code.

[AU72]

A conspiratorial mind would say the powers that be have decided Obama's shelf life has expired.

[presently no screen name]

Yea’butt, how’d you get his charming, overweight wife out of there?

Give the chefs a day off, lock the refrigerator and have the ice cream truck roll by outside the grounds.

[shield]

US Marshalls...

[supercat]

I'm not seeing a down-side.

There is a major downside: it isn't possible to simply pretend that Obama was never recognized by a lot of people as the President of the U.S., and that nothing ever happened as a result of that recognition. Trying to unwind everything that has happened since Obama took over would be difficult even if by some magic there were an omniscient and benevolent dictator in charge of everything. If a company spent $50,000,000 building something that Obama's government ordered, should they get paid? If not, should they be allowed to keep any advance payment they received?

If Obama can't be removed from power via some other way, denouncing him as illegitimate may be better than letting him stay in, but it would be much better for all concerned if he would leave via some other means.

[GBA]

I don't think this is something the SC will deal with.

They, like everyone else, are waiting for someone to first prove their case in the supreme court of public opinion.

And that's not going to happen since real proof, if it still exists, is in the hands of the owner(s) of the current President of the U.S. of A.

[Cen-Tejas]

Mr. Spaulding, perhaps you have not seen this article below that someone sent me today. According to it, Sotomayor and Kagan have already recused themselves this time around in Hollister. So, seven justices it is! Because of snipping it out of an email someone sent me, I have no idea who the author was or anything else. The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court. As you recall, the judge in this case deemed Hollister’s case frivolous as Obama’s eligibility had been ‘twittered’ and thus resolved. He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges have. John Hemenway, attorney for Hollister, directly challenged the Supreme Court to uphold its duty to their oath in protecting the Constitution. A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.” Hemenway had submitted a separate motion for the recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan on the basis of their financial interest in Obama’s continuance. Apparently the Supreme Court broke its own rules, called it a ‘request’, and Sotomayor and Kagan were involved in the decision to deny Hollister’s petition for writ without comment in December 2010. Based on their failure to follow the law, Hollister’s case is now back before the Supremes in conference–this time without Sotomayor and Kagan. From WND’ s interview: We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president. “Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said. (emphasis added) In perhaps the most incisive and challenging statement of the petition, Hemenway states: “To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.” The Supremes have no ‘standing’ issue to hide behind in this case; if they choose to deny without comment they have indeed confirmed that they made a “conscious decision… to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter”. With eyes wide open, we will truly see if any of them have the integrity to live up to their oath of office. And our plans just get that much clearer. Sure is time to follow Red Pill’s advice.

[Spaulding]

Thanks Cen-Tejas. I had not seen that Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves. I wonder why they do so for this case and didn't for the Kerchner v. Obama case?

Excellent summary, though paragraphs would make it easier to read. Every time I read another contributor who has a grasp of the current, and/or the past history of this bold attack on our Constitution my spirits are lifted.

Keep it up.

Does Cen-Tejas have some meaning I am too dense to figure out? Someone calling himself “Chet Arthur” wrote good analysis for American Thinker, and it took another reader to point out the significance of the name. I've tried with yours, and it rings a bell, but I can't figure out which one.