Posted on 12/03/2008 4:16:39 PM PST by dascallie
My fear.
The Supremes are going into closed conference this Friday to vote on whether or not to schedule oral presentation of the Obama eligibility suit.
At least 4 of the 9 justices have to vote yes for it to be scheduled. This is the protocol for all cases….very few ( far less than 10% from what I understand) ever get scheduled for oral hearings.
In this case, it seems there is always a technicality that shuts down the process.
And I have to wonder about the dilemma the justices must feel…if they were to vote to schedule hearings–it will be explosive.
And they know this.
On the other hand how does Chief Justice Roberts with his pledge to uphold the Constitution swear in a man as US President if he has doubts as to whether the man lied to the American people and is not a citizen?
Answer: He keeps himself remote from the most incriminating information so that he is not faced with this moral dilemma. He stays on the surface, drawing no conclusions, deductions, giving benefit of the doubt to Obama--as President Elect. He and all the justices go into hyper-automoton mode.
So I tend to think–unfortunately–that the justices DO NOT WANT TO KNOW because in "knowing" they will inevitably be forced to have doubts--–which will unequivocably force a hearing.
I think they will likely vote to keep the Pandora’s box closed on some “technicality”. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Sad but true.
“…if they were to vote to schedule hearings–it will be explosive.”
And if the matter isn’t settled and 0bama is sworn in next month, that will be explosive, as well. The potential for riots and/or martial law either way.
I would not want to be a Supreme Court Justice right now, but if I was, I would like to think I would do the right thing and at least review the case.
LLS
Can you articulate any reason why ascending Presidents should not be expected (required) to demonstrate eligibility as a matter of course? There are many people who would be ineligible for the job whose ineligibility could never be proven; there are comparatively few who would suitable for the job but would have difficulty proving eligibility.
If Barack Hussein Obama cared about the Constitution, he could have resolved the issue long ago by, at minimum, authorizing the state of Hawaii to officially announce that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on or before January 19, 1974. Can you offer any reason for his refusal which would not be indicative of bad character?
Remember, its the job of the National Guard to protect the homeland, not the Army.
I’ll trust a decision by them, should they actually make one. “Punting,” as it has come to be known, will allow suspicion to fester.
I think (ergo, mho) that SCOTUS will look at the probability for widespread street violence and a permanent, violent racial rift should they decide that bambi is disqualified and weigh it against the very slim possibility of violence from our side should they punt....and they will choose to leave it off the docket.
Thank you for saying that, and for the balance of your post, Shady Ray.
I don't know where all of these naysayers are getting the idea that the SC will choose to sit idly by and do nothing about this issue, when it is clearly within their constitutional jurisdiction, and in the best interests of the nation to judge on the matter. It's what they're there for.
If I ever saw an issue tailor-made for the SC, this is it.
That doesn't cut it. The SC has demanded he produce his vault copy.
Fear not, RummyChick. This is only getting started.
apples and peaches. My post was about the bogus notion that the only way bambi could have visited was by using a foreign passport. Got something to add to that? Go ahead.
Another version would be for Roberts to announce, well before January 20, that he would expect Obama to produce for him prima facie evidence of eligibility prior to that date; if Obama wanted to be sworn in prior to that, he would have to file a Writ of Mandamus. Unfortunately, the issue of the Writ would only be decided by eight justices (Roberts would have to recuse himself) but a 4-4 tie would go against the Writ.
If there were six honest justices on the Court, there wouldn't be a problem since Roberts himself would certainly have standing to file a challenge directly (as someone who would be duty-bound to give the oath if, and only if, Obama is eligible for office). For him to announce his demand publicly directly would be far less elegant, but having one of the honest judges recuse himself from a case where five honest judges would be needed would be disastrous.
I think they’ll split the baby in some way that allows zer0bama to keep his presidency but anyone else who follows him will not be allowed. There are several options.
One way is to decide that the Secretary of States didn’t do their job and that was the time for the lawsuit to have been brought forth, so it’s too late.
Maybe Obama will be the Second Foreign-Born President in History
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2142451/posts
Another way is to say that the constitution is not so clear on the subject so, as of today, anyone who’s born of a citizen is natural born or something like that.
Another way is to require that constitutional instructions be presented to the Electoral College. It’s their job to qualify the candidate, but no one has taken that seriously since the beginning. So they would include instructions that they need to look intently at the eligibility of this man who does not provide proof when asked, and if the EC’s vote for him the Supremes get to wash their hands of it.
Another way is they could require congress to take it up.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2141178/posts#92
To: Congressman Billybob; Aquinasfan; autumnraine; Non-Sequitur; pissant; 50mm; HighlyOpinionated
Congressman, would appreciate your thoughts as we try to noodle this out.
Is it possible the USSC may not get involved in the Obama BC issue prior to the January 8,2009 joint session of Congress, because there is a painfully simple remedy presently available at law?
3 USC 15 (Counting electoral votes in Congress) provides in part ” … Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives…” The language goes on to provide for separate deliberations in the Senate and the House.
If this is an accurate reading of the law, isn’t it clear the Republicans (and others as well) have the right and the duty to challenge O’s eligibility? Especially in light of the fact Obama may have defrauded the several States when he certified he was qualified for the office. The Court may conclude that with this statute and the 20th amendment there is a political verification process and a remedy in place and that the Court has no role in the process.
Thank you for your thoughts.
*******
See the letter on my About page hand-delivered to the local offices of my Republican Senators and Representatives. I urge you to do likewise in your own words, even if it is simply faxing a one page letter to Washington, D.C. We have got to motivate the Republicans to prepare to demonstrate O is not qualified.
92 posted on Monday, December 01, 2008 9:01:40 PM by frog in a pot
No, they haven't. All they've done is add the petitions for cert to the stack of other petitions.
We are not small in numbers. Size is the only thing that will win here.
On that, we do agree. Time to whip out the old quill.
Would it be possible for a (possibly retiring) Congressman to subpoena the records, on the basis that his Constitutionally-mandated function would require that he see them? If he had to go to court, he'd certainly have standing.
If they do take the case it will be for the sole reason of determining who has standing to bring these suits. My guess is even if cert. is granted the court will rule by a substantial majority that all of these Plaintiffs lack standing.
I want to ask you sort of a non-PC question. You are a conservative African American. Do your friends and family join your views about this issue...or is it more important that a barrier was broken with his election...so that if it is shown that he was not born in the US...they want him to be President anyway.
I really fear for what is going to happen....either way this goes.
It is unfortunate that the barrier was broken with this guy..
I think the Clintons know something...it’s like they are in power again.
__________________________________________________
Of course she can't. But her next step will be..."you can't prove there wasn't a ban, can you?"
in 1977 my first us passport denied travel to n. And s. Vietnam, Cuba, and I believe e. Germany. Pakistan wasn’t mentioned. Don’t know when Obama traveled. ( iPhone not so great with capitalization, sorry)
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.