Posted on 03/10/2009 10:16:05 AM PDT by Free America52
. . . . t any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
Scalia didn't say such a thing as he would decide one way or the other in the case before he hears the case. The question would he hear the case in which he answered hypothetically *IF* there are 4 SCOTUS justices who vote to hear it.
Yeah, and it makes me wonder if Obama's attorneys would lodge some kind of recusal filing IF a case were to make it up there... Or if any citizen could. But the SCOTUS is the high court, so you can't go higher, right?
ARE there ANY examples of a SCOTUS Justice recusing himself for conflict of interest?
This is catching on.
Scalia recused himself from Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a pledge of allegiance case in 2003.
You said — “Scalia didn’t say such a thing as he would decide one way or the other in the case before he hears the case. The question would he hear the case in which he answered hypothetically *IF* there are 4 SCOTUS justices who vote to hear it.”
Yeah, I did get that much from what I read about it. I understood that Scalia was being careful in what he said.
I was making some fun of what you said — in that it was okay to talk to the judge about it as long as the case wasn’t before him at the time... It was too much to resist that one... :-)
Yes, it has happened, but quite infrequently. The cases where a justice has recused himself, though, usually involve a financial conflict of interest, not a personal friendship with one of the parties or a lawyer arguing the case.
You said — “We are already seeing cracks appearing in the media shield around Obama.”
Where I see that cracking is on the economy and what Obama is doing about it. AND.., I believe that the economy is the issue that will cause big trouble for Obama in the next Presidential election.
There’s the “opening” for the Republicans... “It’s the economy, stupid!” :-)
—
[ ... or you could try, “Are you better off than you were four years ago!” ... LOL... ]
Fascinating article:
*************************************************
As I was driving home and getting phone calls from people around the country, that were reporting my blog down, I was thinking, Who is the Praetorian guard running this country?
I remembered that I submitted quo Warranto as a supplemental brief to Roberts and the clerk Danny Bickle refused to docket it, saying "it is not what we do". I asked for an explanation, I asked for him to call me and offered my number. He just laughed and said that he definitely knows my number, the whole Supreme Court does. He promised to send the brief back with an explanation, as to why he didn't docket it. I never got it back and I never got an explanation, I have no clue if Roberts ever saw the brief and of course it was never distributed to the rest of the judges.
I was thinking, what is this Praetorian guard capable of? How far will they go? Tuskegee came to mind. Tuskegee was a correction institution in the South where healthy men were infected with syphilis to try to ascertain effectiveness of different antibiotics. When I first read about Tuskegee, it was inconceivable to me, that in US, on American soil the doctors, that take a Hippocratic oath are colluding with pharmaceuticals and the government to act like some Dr. Mengele in Oswenzim or Treblinka Nazi concentration camps. Unfortunately, it really happened.
***********************************************
The libetard culture has invaded the SCOTUS. WHen due process is not observed at this level, someone needs to be tried, convicted and put in jail. Such a one is "Bickle".
Praetorian Guard indeed. This is how fascism conquered in Germany and Italy, and when I see it at this level, it really sticks out painfully and surreally. Bickle is just "doing his job."
Its the same explanation that the guards at Auschwitz and Treblinka gave when asked why they were so blind to the human context.
Makes me shiver in revulsion.
The Bickles of America will destroy her if we let them.
(Just like the moron office worker that ExTexasRedhead recently encountered at her representative's offices over the phone.)
If the above example doesn’t work, think of any other scenario where a Justice (or multiple Justices) might have the APPEARANCE of not be able to render a fair and just ruling, because of their affiliation with the defendant or plaintiff ...
This is especially a “sticky wicket” for the HIGHEST Court in the land, where cases have NO WHERE ELSE to go for appeal. Justice is suppose to be blind, but the Justices are human, and despite their oaths and experience, still subject to partiality. The choices may be federal grand jury or a promotion of a Justice as temporary Chief Justice for impartiality for one, particular case.
Do we know if Alito has met with Orly?
Unless some of the people testing the vaccine on ferrets caught it, should be none. The ferrets caught the flu and died, which tipped off the lab folks that something was very wrong.
That is not saying there won't be a 'next time' somewhere.
NO, in so far as I'm aware.
Have we ever gotten a reasonable explanation (and not that because he is full of right-wing venom) as to why Alito was at neither the private POTUS-SCOTUS meeting nor the Inauguration?
Thanks, that’s good to recognize. I hope those people injecting the ferrets didn’t get bit or something.
And poor ferrets.
Mental breakdown and/or returning to his drug habit.
Either or both of which I consider entirely likely. Maybe alongside some of the other scenarios, of course.
I think you got part of it right. The SCOTUS can do nothing without evidence of violating a law or a question of legal interpretation.
In the first case there appear no admissible witnesses to testify that Obama was not born inthe USA. In the second case there is the Donofrio question of how a natural born citizen is defined.
The Donofrio case has the potential for subpoena of the long form vaulted birth certificate (long form) that has not been produced or seen, but has been kept from public release by Obama. The one that has been seen is a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) which the Hawaii government has apparently verified is authentic but does not verify a birth in Hawaii. The long form vaulted birth certificate will verify birth in Hawaii if it exists.
Donofrio can subpoena the long form as a means of providing evidence on the father where are there are multiple witnesses to his Kenyan citizenship and his status as a British subject at the time of Obama’s birth.
If Donofrio is heard and subpoenas the long form, then the Obama legal defense can be expected to fight release of the long form but then that forces the issue into the press. And that is the crux of the case, why is Obama barring release of his long form? Once the press gets hold of that question the American people like me are going to be thinking Obama is hiding something.
And I expect the press will have to wrestle with the issue of COLB versus long form in Hawaii. And that will wake Americans up more to why this is a legit question.
So as I see it, this case hinges on Donofrio.
However, one terrible fly in Obama’s ointment is the new law passed in Missouri (I believed it was passed) that requires presidential candidates to provide evidence meeting the constitutional requirement of ‘natural born’. That means this becomes an unavoidable issue for the 2012 election if America survives until then.
And if the question of ‘natural born’ hasn’t been decided by 2012, then Missouri may be tied up in court over whether Obama can be placed on the ballot or not. Obama may produce the Hawaii COLB again and tell Missouri there’s the proof.
So once again the Donofrio case must establish what is proof of ‘natural born’. But from my understanding there are some State Department regs that state a COLB is not evidence of citizenship.
This case is not over and it may have legs.
Looks like a realistic possibility, IMO.
Exactly!
You said — “Exactly!”
—
Quoted from post #100...
[ ... Lawyer: “ Ummm..., judge, I’m bringing this case before you and I was wondering if you could tell me how you’re going to decide this case, so I know before I present it in court. You wouldn’t mind, would you?”
Judge: “No problem..., we should be able to figure this case out before you get here and have all the problem solved. It should take no time at all to get this case done in court, and then we can go out for beer later...” ]
You said — “I think you got part of it right. The SCOTUS can do nothing without evidence of violating a law or a question of legal interpretation.”
—
Yeah..., that’s pretty much it in a nutshell..
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you said — “So once again the Donofrio case must establish what is proof of ‘natural born’. But from my understanding there are some State Department regs that state a COLB is not evidence of citizenship.
This case is not over and it may have legs.”
—
Now, here is where it gets somewhat murky with the Supreme Court. I can imagine that any case that gets decided on this question at a lower court, is going to go up to the Supreme Court, because neither side is going to accept the other side’s “win”...
And there, the Supreme Court can really go either way. You just don’t know about it. The definition that the Supreme Court comes down with — will decide — once and for all, what that particular definition is, and it may not be what some posters here are saying. I’m sure that they will not be happy to hear that, but that’s the way the Supreme Court does it sometimes and that could very well be the possibility. So, it’s not simply an “automatic win” if the Supreme Court gets the issue based on this “natural born” status question.
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And lastly, I mention your comment — “However, one terrible fly in Obama’s ointment is the new law passed in Missouri (I believed it was passed) that requires presidential candidates to provide evidence meeting the constitutional requirement of ‘natural born’. That means this becomes an unavoidable issue for the 2012 election if America survives until then.”
—
Well..., that’s news to me about Missouri. I was aware of Arizona and Oklahoma (I’m in Oklahoma and have been supporting that legislation here).
Do you have a FReeper posting or reference to that one. I would be interested, as I see *that method* as the method to stop Obama in the next election.
It’s one thing for him to sue one state, but if he has to sue three states (the ones that are putting that into effect now), that will really be news. But, what if he has to sue 20 states!! Boy! That will really be news! LOL...
An average of about 10 per year.
Roberts owns stock in some pharma companies, and recuses from cases where they are parties. Scalia (and Thomas also, I think) have children who are lawyers and recuse from cases where their firms are involved. Breyer's brother is a district court judge and he recuses from cases where his brother's decisions are being appealed.
Obama's socializing with the Justices does not require anyone to recuse, unless they discussed a specific case. The Court decided a few years ago that Alito could hear cases where Vice President Cheney was a party, even though Alito and Cheney go hunting together, because Alito said they didn't discuss any pending case.
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.