Skip to comments.High Court takes Pass on Obama REsidency Suit
Posted on 12/08/2008 7:44:10 AM PST by Froggie
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.
The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, New Jersey, to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth -- his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject -- he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed.
Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.
This is a surprisingly accurate story from the AP.
Isn’t it odd that all these “news” agencies can report with lightening speed on the SC rejection...but you hardly heard from them when the case was filed..... i am not surprised
stand fast—this may well eventually prove to be our Alamo!
You said — “GUTLESS !”
Yep..., its like Ive posted before about the Supreme Court, concerning Obama being a natural-born Kenyan and not being qualified as President of the United States. The Supreme Court is not interested in resolving this issue but they may resolve it after Obama has served his term in office... LOL..
So much for the Constitution...
“not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed.”
I didn’t think that the Hawaii secretary of state confirmed that...
“Isnt it odd that all these news agencies can report with lightening speed on the SC rejection...but you hardly heard from them when the case was filed..... i am not surprised”
Yep, and predictable—the talking heads are as gleeful as pigs in slop!
You said — “Isnt it odd that all these news agencies can report with lightening speed on the SC rejection...but you hardly heard from them when the case was filed..... i am not surprised”
It puts a lot of readers in an odd position of hearing about the “end of the story” (so to speak) — before they ever heard about the beginning of the story... LOL...
You are correct: the Hawaii secretary of state has not made such a confirmation. The head of the health department (Ms. Fukino) made a very cautious statement about Hawaii having some records relating to Mr. Obama's birth, but did not clarify anything about those records the State of Hawaii had on file.
The AP story is ALMOST “accurate” - the story says that Pennsylvania court*s* have dismissed Berg’s case.
Not true. It *is* true that the Third Circuit denied Berg’s first emergency application. However, (a) his appeal is still alive; and (b) his new emergency motion has not yet been ruled on. (Appellees’ briefs are due Dec. 19, I believe).
In other words, only the PA federal district court has dismissed his case.
Even if SCOTUS denies Berg’s pending writ, remember - he still has an appeal pending in the Third Circuit.
And, if the Third Circuit upholds the District Court’s decision, Berg could, conceivably, return to SCOTUS to file another “regular” writ petition related to that order.
Reminder: this case is NOT about O’s birth certificate. It is about his alleged* father’s citizenship, and the consequences thereof.
* - “alleged” because the case does not address the official original birth certificate, and thus does not address who his actual father is (of which there is some circumstantial doubt). The case may very well have been denied precisely because it could turn out to be chasing a red herring.
I am always surprised when any AP writer gets to over 70% accuracy in any reasonably detailed article.
Declined without comment? Someone is scared sh*tless about this case.
Perhaps the Berg case is the stronger of the two. Furthermore it was filed by a Democrat which seems more fair and objective. Plus Berg seems more capable as a lawyer to make the case both in the press and the court.
Just maybe they passed on this one so they could hear the stronger of the two cases.
Meanwhile, the matter returns to the political arena. I think that the Internet alone is probably an inadequate sounding board to gain much traction with this issue. It is a pity that the big guns in talk radio have declined to take this matter up. I think it is a legitimate issue. Why should we be called kooks when it is Obama who is being thoroughly irresponsible? For a $10 piece of paper he could forestall millions of dollars worth of lawsuits and bind the country together rather than preside over its fratricide. Is it not legitimate to ask who is responsible and who is irresponsible under these circumstances? But in the long run, Obama is courting a real crisis in legitimacy and confidence.
Mr. President-elect, there is a cancer on the presidency.
You said — “Declined without comment? Someone is scared sh*tless about this case.”
They don’t comment...
You’re making something out of nothing.
Why would any of us think the Supreme Court would follow the Constitution?
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.