Posted on 12/05/2008 6:33:15 AM PST by maineman
I thought we should have a link to post any and all updates.
SCOTUS: Obama, produce the original birth certificate.
I'm not sure that the Supreme Court actually has the power to force anybody to do anything.
Pretty good. Thanks for the link.
OK. But Donofrio's suit has NOTHING to do with Obama's birthplace or birth certificate. They are completely irrelevant to his claim. He even stipulates a Hawaiian birth, if I understand correctly. Donofrio's case is about the definition of "natural born citizen."
Why has Obama sealed all his records? This is not foolish.
Trying to learn more about Obama's background and dirty laundry is not foolish. Claiming the Constitution says something that it doesn't, like Donofrio, IS foolish.
I thought SCOTUS had lifetime appointments in order to avoid political pressure.
Great response!
Speaking of SCOTUS clerk, was there any truth to the story that the paperwork filing was held for anthrax testing?
Thanks for the laugh.. Kind of like everything else in D.C. there is how it is 'supposed to be', then, there is how it is.
“Assuming that Barry was born in the US, and there’s really no legitimate proof that he wasn’t, then I think he’s natural born.” Ah, but that is the rub. It is not the responsibility of We The People to provide legitimate proof that he is not eligible, it is the responsibility of the affirmativea ction candidate to prove he is eligible for the job he’s applied for.
My understanding of Donofrio’s case was that it’s against the NJ Sec of State for not vetting candidates.
"The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day."
"Caution: These electronic orders may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed versions. Moreover, all order lists and miscellaneous orders are replaced within a few months by paginated versions of them in a preliminary print of the United States Reports, and one year after the issuance of the preliminary print by the final version of the orders in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of orders, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between order lists or miscellaneous orders and any later official version of them, the later version controls."
I have asked and pinged Polarik on many threads to produce evidence who he is for the sake of establishing his expertise, even, if he wishes, to provide the affidavit he signed with his last name blacked out if he is concerned about security. He has never responded. Heck, a photograph of his PhD with his name blacked out would be fine.
***I haven’t seen your pings. Fine. I’ll ask myself if it’ll satisfy you. Ron, what are your Bona Fides? How can we check them?
(albeit, he admits that isn’t his name)
***Ok, fine. One more thing I’ll ask as well from Polarik. On the Obamacrimes website, it says: “Dr. Polarik” is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video.
The credence of all his ‘evidence’ rests on if he is actually an expert. Go back and look at his evidence. Look at how many conclusions he comes to using phrases like ‘from my experience’ or ‘in my expert opinion’.
***So what? His analysis speaks for itself.
If he is an expert as claims, those can be registered evidence. If he is not an expert, then those are just opinions.
***He’s testifying on behalf of Berg, so his expertise will be voir dire’d by the defense. That’s more of an expert than 95% of the population, but if that doesn’t satisfy you, what will?
My ‘mettle’ here isn’t to argue if it is real or not, my mettle is simply to raise the standard of what we call proof and to provide a little critical thinking
***Bull Shiite. If you are trying to raise the standard for critical thinking then stop using classical fallacies and arguments from silence.
so we don’t fall for the next game change de’jour like we did Larry Sinclair, Whitey Tape, Michell Obama Tape, drug dealing, API stories, etc, etc..
***Here’s the difference between Polarik and all that garbage you bring up: Is Sinclair testifying as an expert in a CertifiGate case? Is the Whitey Tape part of any evidence in a CertifiGate case? Is the Michelle Obama Tape evidence in a CertifiGate case? Is the drug dealing part of expert testimony in a Certifigate case? etc. etc. None of those other stupid inquiries rise to this level, so you are engaging in a fallacy of using the wrong analogy. So much for raising the level of critical thinking.
We are batting something like 0 and 10 on these game changers we where hoping for. Time to make sure our swings at the ball are a little tighter.
***”We”? I didn’t hope for nuthin’ on the Whitey Tape. I gave up on the API soon into the shenanigans. I don’t log onto Larry Sinclair threads. If you’re the high falutin’ expert on critical reasoning, what were YOU doing falling down those ratholes?
The issue here is who in our election system is responsible for establishing a candidate’s eligibility. Eclair won, it’s done. Next time, we’ll have a system in place. Roger Calero isn’t eligible to be dog catcher, much less POTUS
They never requested him to produce anything. See the article posted here.
You are exactly correct. I was sloppy in in forgetting to put in the phrase that was the whole point!
“FMBass has a wonderful sense of humor. I love Laz too.”
Aw shucks (fluttering eyelashes and blushing)you are too kind.
Most states the father is legally the father even if not biologically....
***That is superceded by the constitutional (Federal, not State) requirement for eligibility to be president. States cannot remove the requirement.
Donofrio’s case is actually about challenging the NJ election process where the eligibility of the candidates was not checked and at least one completely ineligible candidate was certified eligible by the iodiot NJ authority, Wells. If the SCOTUS can ignore that, there is no force left in the Constitutional requirements for president.
That's true in theory, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Supreme Court justices are thinking human beings, and they understand the ramifications of what they do, and they are certainly not interested in making a ruling that would seriously undermine the public's faith in the political process, moreso now than ever with the economic problems.
This isn't Zimbabwe. The Court isn't interested in calling into question the results of an election for President of the United States. There is value in certainty.
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.