Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court
ObamaCrimes.com Phillip Berg ^ | 10/25/2008 | Phillip j. Berg

Posted on 10/25/2008 3:52:37 PM PDT by Danae

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-486 next last
I guess he is going to skip right over the thrid Circuit.

He is going to ask the SCOTUS to change the law in essence. To make it possible for the average person to question the qualifications of a candidate for President. This is either a Pandora's Box, or a chance for the average Man to have a say with just cause to do so.

1 posted on 10/25/2008 3:52:38 PM PDT by Danae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Danae
Stop The Insanity!
2 posted on 10/25/2008 3:54:22 PM PDT by BallyBill (Serial Hit-N-Run poster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Maybe the judge dismissing it on the grounds he did will turn out to be a good thing, the USSC would be higher profile, Obama can’t appeal higher, and they would have a vested interest in the Constitutional aspect. There are also enough Conservatives sitting, if there is something to this, it has a chance of being heard.


3 posted on 10/25/2008 3:54:26 PM PDT by mnehring (We Are Joe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
GO BERG GO! Expose the charlatain!





YES TO MCCAIN-PALIN '08 FOR AMERICA





SARAH PALIN DRAWING HUGE CROWDS ALL ACROSS AMERICA







http://www.jeffhead.com/joeplumber.htm


4 posted on 10/25/2008 3:54:29 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free...never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

How could this judge say that a US Citizen has no standing about his president?


5 posted on 10/25/2008 3:55:21 PM PDT by Retired Greyhound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

“He is going to ask the SCOTUS to change the law in essence.”

Change what law??

“To make it possible for the average person to question the qualifications of a candidate for President”

The President of the United States represents the PEOPLE.

So why wouldn’t the People have standing to bring the suit?

Either individually or collectively..


6 posted on 10/25/2008 3:56:05 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
"He is going to ask the SCOTUS to change the law in essence."

Actually he is merely asking that they require a potential future President of the United States to prove that he is legally qualified. Is that asking too much?

7 posted on 10/25/2008 3:57:24 PM PDT by TommyDale (I) (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
The SC will slap him down like they did Ohio and fraudulent ballot ruling! I think the bigger case is the Judge who threw out the case has donated and supports OsAMA! He needed to go to a friendly court judge instead he walked into the lions den!
8 posted on 10/25/2008 3:57:36 PM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

Because to liberals, the people have no rights, only (tax) obligations.


9 posted on 10/25/2008 3:57:55 PM PDT by comps4spice (Democrats caused the current financial mess. Do we really want to give them the Oval Office?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Danae
This stinks of conflict of interest. Please post on every blog on the net and get to Phil Berg.


PLEASE POST TO ALL BLOGS
http://www.sidley.com/ourpeople/Detail.aspx?attorney=1069

10 posted on 10/25/2008 3:58:06 PM PDT by ncfool (ObaBama stands for The New United Socialist State or "TNUSSA")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

This could be big news. Drudge is running lower court rejection. He is sure to pick up SCOTUS appeal.

If anything, it puts doubt into play.


11 posted on 10/25/2008 3:58:12 PM PDT by nhwingut (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comps4spice

“Because to liberals, the people have no rights, only (tax) obligations.”

You got that right.


12 posted on 10/25/2008 3:58:41 PM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling
In a very real sense it is, despite how depressed I was this morning, that is the proper forum. Surrick essentially Punted, he knew Berg would appeal it, likely he knew it was gonna go up over his head anyway, it would have been appealed by either side. To make a decision for Surrick was literally just an opportunity to have his decision over turned, something most judges will try to avoid.

SCOTUS is the proper forum really. It all just depends now on if they will hear the case or throw it out. If they throw it out, then we really are lost as a nation. As Berg quotes “A government of the people BY the people” well WE are the People, and we deserve to know that candidates are qualified under the constitution to run for the office they seek. No one has ever Vetted Obama, he has snuck under the radar at every damned opportunity. Its time to stop that right dead in its tracks.

13 posted on 10/25/2008 3:59:18 PM PDT by Danae (Obama = Trickle up Poverty. Don't like it, get ready to be"reeducated" into it if he is elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Danae

While I do not agree with Berg’s “truther” stuff. Politics have made the strangest bedfellows ever in this election.

If he can expose and (Lord help us all) correct a deficiency in the Constitution that has no mechanism to insure that those running for the highest office in the land actually meet the requirements it sets forth, may God bless him.

We have apparently been sitting on this landmine for over 200 years and spared only because decent people respected what the law said. Now we have this man who is not decent and we need to stop him. If you will excuse me...by any lawful means necessary.


14 posted on 10/25/2008 3:59:34 PM PDT by lovesdogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Retired Greyhound
How could this judge say that a US Citizen has no standing about his president?

Could the judge or somebody tell me WHO has standing? And when we find out, let that/those person(s) file suit.

15 posted on 10/25/2008 3:59:39 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Why shouldn’t Berg be able to ask the question, “Can you show us your birth certificate?” What’s so wrong about that and why does a judge appointed by Bill Clinton say he doesn’t have the authority to ask? Who does then? What caste level in our society can ask such an exalted question of the shiester “lord barrack...”...I guess only a democratic judge when it’s about the citizenship of a republican candidate....we’re headed towards fascism...if this thug wins, we all lose big time....


16 posted on 10/25/2008 4:00:03 PM PDT by Chuck N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

What entity is otherwise responsible for this inquiry?


17 posted on 10/25/2008 4:01:01 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Concerning Larry Sinclair: It is strange when you can be thankful for having a pervert on your side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

“Newsmax reports that U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick has dismissed the complaint by Philip Berg challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama for the presidency. The document has not yet been posted to the Justia.com site, so we cannot directly quote it, but Newsmax writes:

Surrick issued a 34-page memorandum and opinion that said the claims were “ridiculous” and “patently false.” He also said Berg’s effort to pursue his claim regarding Obama’s citizenship were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.” “

FINALLY


18 posted on 10/25/2008 4:01:03 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Danae
It seems to me that the only person who can claim injury, and thus standing, at this point is:

Hillary Clinton.

19 posted on 10/25/2008 4:01:19 PM PDT by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Obama’s Birth Certificate Judge-Obama Linkage

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2115270/posts


20 posted on 10/25/2008 4:01:37 PM PDT by Portrait of a Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 481-486 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson