Posted on 02/15/2013 9:09:12 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy who denied her petition originally. But I resubmitted to Justice Roberts, and he sent it to the conference, Taitz said. (1)
The California attorney is asking
how do we know that he (Kennedy) ever saw the brief? In no uncertain terms clerk James Baldin told me that I (Taitz) [was] not allowed to see the signature. This denial of her right to see Kennedys signature does not make any sense. Perhaps her...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Are you kidding? Orly Taitz is nothing if not entertaining! I swear, her birther crusade could be a Coen Brothers' film.
I don’t wonder at all.
Real conservatives who care about the Constitution and don’t think his eligibility will ever be addressed just don’t post on these threads.
Anyone who thinks his eligibility (or rather, lack of it) is a non-issue as in not important, or that there is no doubt about it, are neither conservative nor do they care about the Constiution or rule of law.
The Powers That Be in DC and the national security apparatus may have gamed out the various scenarios where "Obama" is outed as the fraud he is and concluded the risk of the country's destruction is too great For such to be allowed to happen.
For myself however, I pray every day that he and his handlers and enablers are exposed for all to see, and in spectacular fashion.
"if you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters."
Applies to the rule of law also.
Ping !
Folks appear to be confused about Noonan v Bowen. First, and most importantly, this is NOT an appeal of a lawsuit to the Supreme Court. It is an Application for a Stay. Please take a look at the actual Supreme Court Docket:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm
Most folks are familiar with the Supreme Court issuing Stays of Execution in capital murder cases. The stay being requested in Noonan v Bowen is to stop the certification of California’s Electoral votes until the California Secretary of State has vetted Barack Obama. Of course, the problem with that is that the California Electoral votes have already been certified. Granting Ms. Taitz’s application for a stay now would be like granting a stay of execution after the prisoner has already been executed.
The reason that this application went to Justice Kennedy first is because it is a California application and Justice Kennedy is the regional Supreme Court Justice for California, each of the justices handles applications from a different region of the nation.
Once the regional Justice has rejected an application, the Respondee has the option of submitting it to each of the other Justices, but usually a denied application is submitted secondly to the Chief Justice who then submits it to the full Court for a Friday Justices’ Conference.
Unlike a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (a request to have the full court rule of an appeal) an application for a stay or an injunction requires the approval of five Justices in order to be granted. Writs of Certiorari require four Justices’ concurrence.
Francis McDormand could pull it off...and probably win an Oscar for her turn as deranged dentist Orly Taitz.
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.