Posted on 12/09/2008 9:10:17 AM PST by ckilmer
When the Supreme Court denied cert to Leo Donofrio, most of us thought the issue of Barack Obama’s status as a citizen was put to rest. Not so fast, as Dave Weigel reluctantly notes. Justice Antonin Scalia has referred another lawsuit to conference covering much the same ground in Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz, and the Birther movement has another brief reprieve:
Why is it that Justices Ginsburg and Souter have tossed junk lawsuits about Barack Obama’s citizenship, but Justices Thomas and now Scalia have wanted them read in conference? There have been two coherent lawsuits alleging that both Obama and McCain are ineligible for the presidency. …
What is the lesson that Scalia and Thomas are sending? Either they’ve reversed their views on standing, or they’re letting the world know that no case is too wingnutty for them not to consider. And at some point that’s doing damage to the country. Do they really want people thinking the president is illegitimate because they didn’t do like the liberal justices and reject this baseless kookery? I can’t remember, but was either Scalia or Thomas in the habit of having the court read the “Bush knocked down the twin towers!” junk lawsuits?
Indeed, as the docket report shows, Ginsburg rejected Wrotnowski two weeks ago, at least for injunctive relief. Scalia didn’t provide an injunction, but instead of following the example set by Donofrio, he referred the case to conference. That seems a little unusual, since Wrotnowski appears to plow the same ground as Donofrio, which is that Obama cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because his father was a British subject, even though Obama was born in the US.
Hot Air readers already know our deep skepticism regarding these lawsuits. Barack Obama was born in the United States of one native-born American citizen (his mother), which should satisfy all but the bitter-enders of this election. Both Wrotnowski and Donofrio concede these points.
So why did Scalia send Wrotnowski to conference? Like Dave, I doubt that it’s to get a unanimous ruling on these challenges to Obama’s standing that will end all of the pointless legal battles. In any case, if Donofrio didn’t get four votes, there’s no reason to think that Wrotnowski will do any better — but it seems that Scalia and Thomas have made themselves the go-to guys on the court for all legal challenges to Obama’s election.
Update (AP): A commenter in Headlines speculates that they’re doing this to stop the petitioners from refiling their petitions with a new Justice every time they’re rejected by another. For instance, Souter denied Donofrio’s petition initially; Donofrio immediately refiled with Thomas, who then dumped it on the Court to be denied summarily. Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia, who’s now gone the same route. It may be that the liberal wing of the Court simply won’t deign to refer this matter to a full conference whereas the conservatives are willing at least to go that far in the interests of clearing the cases off the docket as fast as possible.
You said — “This could all come to an end with Obama’s BC.”
Which is why you’re never going to see it... Obama will make sure of that. Even with him not proving his eligibility — Obama is *getting terrific mileage* out of this issue by “kookifying” all those who pursue this issue.
And, that’s what all the main conservatives (leaders, the Republican Party, websites and so on) are figuring out now...
>>Which is why you’re never going to see it...<<
I know, but I can dream.
You said — “It seems to me that it is a possible indication that there is interest in hearing this case if they had already had a conference on a similar case. Why would Justice Scalia bring this case to conference if they had already heard one and had no interest in hearing this case at all?”
Nope, they’re just figuring out how to quickly *dispose* of the coming cases. They know there are more coming and they are figuring out that this is the way to “seemingly” get it heard, but — “Denied!” ... LOL..
They’ve got their strategy down pretty good in the Supreme Court to lay this issue to rest and bury it...
—
And then you asked — “Just so that it wouldn’t get re-filed to another Jusitce?”
That sounds like an effective strategy for them to *dump* all these cases in a hurry and to not bug them with more “ring around the rosie” type antics...
That’s fine. I could care less what any of those people think of me anyway.
Meanwhile, they’re being exposed as the useless unprincipled zeroes they are.
Me, just a typical birther person, holding on to my guns and my religion....just me, proudly wearing my birther.com tin foil hat.
I found one that differs, the same one I go to most every day—Diana West. IMHO a really brilliant woman & writer. She appears in the WashTimes also.
You said — “I know, but I can dream.”
Believe me, I hate this mess as much as anyone — but — “the fix is in” as I can see it written all over the place (with our own conservative media, our own leaders, our own people, our *own President*, and our own Presidential Candidate, and even our own “Palin” that we all liked so well).
All the leaders (ours), officials (ours) and candidates (ours), media (ours) are going along with this... And these same are saying that whoever disagrees are the *kooks*....
We’ve been “kookified”... LOL...
You said — “Meanwhile, they’re being exposed as the useless unprincipled zeroes they are.”
—
I guess the Rush-bots are going to dump Rush Limbaugh now... :-)
Remember that in the ‘30s, as Hitler rose to power, the worldview was that he was a great man who would bring peace and prosperity to Germany. Neville chamberlain ignored the writing on the wall, the wolf’s teeth hidden in the smile.
Let ‘em. He’s useless more often than not these days too.
Hey, lib, I am not saying Obama will not be the next president.
I, and the others you consistently deride, am only saying these things need to be vetted and have the potential of causing problems for his potential presidency.
Start thinking like a conservative.
You said — “I found one that differs, the same one I go to most every day—Diana West. IMHO a really brilliant woman & writer.”
—
Well, I like http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ ... They’ve really been going after the Obama Birth Certificate, like gang-busters... BUT, even here, there are FReepers who have labeled WorldNetDaily as a “kook-site”...
Just goes to show you that even FReepers can’t get it right, even with WorldNetDaily...
You said — “Start thinking like a conservative.”
I already do..., a lot more than Bush, McCain, the Republican Party, many of our Congressmen, a lot of FReepers — but — that’s not going to change the issue about Obama’s Birth Certificate and the fact that I’m *outnumbered* in this country....
There’s a lot of people here who are being “kookified” (i.e., marginalized) by their own Party and their own leaders... that’s the “net result” of what is happening...
Hot air is a good name for them.
You said — “Let ‘em. He’s useless more often than not these days too.”
We’re not going to have anyone left that anyone listens to... LOL... We’ll end up talking to ourselves and influencing no one at the polls, where the elections occur...
>>We’ve been “kookified”... LOL...<<
That’s okay. My lib sisters think I’m that way anyway!
You would be happy to drink water that is 10% poison?
90% puts them right up there with the MSM.
“In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.” - Mark Twain
Sorry but I do not see any evidence for that theory.
Oh yes , they call it ‘World Nut Daily’, ‘Whirled Nut ‘ & such. I read about Farah seeing pterodactyls flying over the African jungle. But still, he prints info we can’t get from MSM. Or from Malkin et al, now.
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.