Posted on 03/07/2011 9:28:25 AM PST by charlie72
March 7, SCOTUS denies re-hearing of Hollister vs Soetoro with no comment.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
There is no update on the SCOTUS site. So I am not believing this post at all. SCOTUSBlog is a leftist site.
I also do not see anything on SCOTUSBlog that says that it has been denied. I have called SCOTUS twice today in an attempt to reach the Clerk’s office, but haven’t been able to get through. So until I hear confirmation of this, I am not taking it as 100% truth, though, I tend to believe that this will indeed be the case.
I have little faith in this court to take up this matter.
Thomas has already said they are avoiding it. The Bastards.
(ORDER LIST: 562 U.S.)
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011
REHEARINGS DENIED
10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.
On the statement by Judge Donald Carter: In all the hearings previous, he was really zipping along toward an airing of eligibility issues, granting standing to the petitioners. Then he suddenly reversed, and OBTW, had acquired a new law clerk from the defendant’s then counsel, Perkins Coie (Seattle.) And, if memory serves, this particular clerk had an unusual credential an African background perhaps Kenyan, not African-American, African.
Yeah, I just got the update. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-678.htm
There is no United States of America now. The Constitution is dead.
Article III of the US Constitution says the judiciary is given the responsibility of deciding any cases resulting from the US Constitution or the law.
The US Constitution says that there are certain requirements for anybody who is even ELIGIBLE to be POTUS. If there is a case arising out of the Constitution’s requirements for eligibility, the correct mode for people to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” (a First Amendment right) to decide that CASE is the judiciary, which includes SCOTUS.
Congress has no power to decide legal cases. They are totally irrelevant to this discussion.
You mean:
It seems lately that all of FreeRepublic has now become a site concerned with upholding the Constitution.
Corrections with apologies:
1. Judge is David not Donald Carter.
2. New clerk for the case, Sidhartha Valendra (sp.?) is not from Kenya.
If SCOTUS did not properly respond to the plaintiff’s motion for Kagan and Sotomayor to recuse themselves, then doesn’t the case just remain in the same condition it was before? Until that motion gets a response, the case remains open, right?
Does anybody know about that? The whole reason to file for a re-hearing is because the motion didn’t get a response. SCOTUS has to respond to that motion, don’t they? They can answer other questions (like whether they will re-hear the case) as many times as they want but until they actually rule on the motion in question they’ve just wasted a bunch of time without ever resolving this case, I would think.
Is that right?
I’m off to work, but would appreciate the input of anybody who knows anything about that, and I’ll see it when I get back home.
Curtain closed in this Act.
There’s another Act in this play. A few, probably.
But the process to put someone in the Presidency is political from beginning to end, deliberately, by design.
You are correct that the USSC may decide "cases arising under this Constitution". But the USSC has never defined this question as a "case", and, in my opinion, they will not (and should not) do so.
The courts do not decide political questions. The whole elaborate ritual of opening and counting the sealed votes in front of the sitting VP and every Senator and Member of Congress was designed to emphasize the entirely political nature of the process.
And, lest you think I am defending "Obama" or his interests, I am not.
That a person such as the man who calls himself "Obama" could have been chosen to be President is a symptom of very, very deep-seated problems, problems which me may well not survive.
The Supreme Court, however, has already amassed (much) too much power. They should not be accorded the power to dismiss a President.
That's our job in the first instance (by not electing him) and Congress' job secondarily.
Should it be necessary to remove him by extraconstitutional or even extralegal means, the harm tha would be visited on this land would be, in my view, extreme. I pray that that will not become necessary.
It is my view that the USSC is correct is avoiding this, the ultimate political question. We have to resolve it ourselves, or live with the consequences.
But Obama may be from Kenya, we don't know for sure.
.......these guys and gals on the Supreme Court are just plain ole human beings like the rest of us except, for the most part, they are more highly educated and experienced in the law, ergo, they are not idiots and know EXACTLY what they are doing.
So, the fact that they have turned down this case 13 times means ITS OVER! As Justice Thomas said, they are scared of this case. So are our legislators and if they became 100% Republican nothing would change. It’s almost to the point I think where some of us just hope the government does shut down completely because “our system” is broke and “nothing else” will FIX IT !!! Then, we can sort it all out from there. So, in my humble opinion, and I’m just one man, “to hell with the status quo, shut it down and then “pay U.S. bills by priority”..............like the rest of us!......and then when all the money is gone............so be it!
So in other words, the king can do no wrong.
I don’t agree with your position.
I have doubts about Obama's qualifications and I think the issues should be pursued, but it has become absolutely clear to me that the GOP feels that this matter is a dry well.
It's not the court's job to run this country, thankfully.
For this case, hearing the case at all is discretionary on the part of SCOTUS (just as a general procedural matter, a case being heard by a District Court, then reviewed by a higher appellate court, has run its course - SCOTUS may take the case from the reviewing court, but that is a discretionary choice. Not so with the first appellate court, that court MUST take the case).
Anyway, at SCOTUS, a Motion for Rehearing is available as a matter of right; but SCOTUS can reject the Motion. This "Motion for Rehearing" activity also goes on after a reviewing court decides a case.
So evil leftists and compromised eunuchs run the country.
And both the judicial and legislative branches (what to speak of executive) s*** on the Constitution.
Yes, and it did. It denied the motion. Not unusual, most cases presented to SCOTUS are disposed of in one line responses, "Cert. denied."
Well, I don't know about that. Take Chairman Issa, for example. He's certainly no leftist. He has the power to subpoena all of the Hawaiian birth records anytime he wants. No court will deny that Issa has that power, if he chooses to use it.
So, why doesn't Issa subpoena these materials? Good question. Some people thinks Issa views us "birthers" at nutcases and he doesn't want to be associated with us. Other people think he's been compromised by events in his past and is being blackmailed.
I don't know the answer(s) to why the GOP has dropped the ball on this issue, but clearly it isn't going to pursue this matter. I know that, you know that, and the Court knows that.
“Us”?
1. Eunuchs - scared little wabbits.
2. RINOs who agree with globailst socialism but are “lite”.
3. Compromised in some way.
There is no other alternative.
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.