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.
Has there been a change since yesterday? Because yesterday the SCOTUS website said Donofrio's stay against the NJ SOS was denied but his ‘Petition for Writ of Certiorari’ was not denied it was placed as "pending."
Unless that has changed this morning the first sentence of this article is factually wrong. I have no use for articles that begin with falsehoods.
I am aware of what is going on at the Supreme Court.
I’ll give you a big “point taken” on the natural born statement I made. I was in error. I amend that to say:
“There is no evidence that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.”
You asked — “So why are you “kookifying” those conservatives with whom you say you would be happy, should Obama truly have a problem?”
It’s the *facts* of what is happening. People need to recognize that this is precisely what is happening on this issue — which as nothing to do with whether Obama should be qualified or not.
Bush and his Administration wants nothing to do with the issue, McCain and Palin want nothing to do with the issue (in fact Palin looks forward to working with Obama and considers the election of Obama to be a *done deal*), our Republican Party wants nothing to do with the issue, many FReepers here want nothing to do with this issue, conservatives websites are out there that want nothing to do with this issue — and you wonder why or how people are getting “kookified”.... just look around you...
—
And then — “Why, in the heck, do you continue to lie and misrepresent those who are saying these things need to be vetted? It was YOU implying people like myself somehow don’t “know Obama is going to be the next President of the United States.””
It’s not a lie to say that you and others are getting “kookified” and are being made to look like crazies and are being marginalized and even our own party and its leaders and members are doing that.
And, many that I see posting here on Free Republic are talking like some “last ditch effort” is going to keep Obama from being President of the United States.
It’s never going to happen (i.e., that he’s prevented from being President of the United States) and it’s never going to happen that his birth certificate is going to be allowed to disqualify him — with all those who are opposed to doing anything about this issue...
It seems that you’re simply not facing up to the miserable reality of the situation — regardless of what is in the Constitution...
You said: “I am aware of what is going on at the Supreme Court.
I’ll give you a big “point taken” on the natural born statement I made. I was in error. I amend that to say:
“There is no evidence that Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States.””
The question as to whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency is NOT a question that needs evidence then (already provided by Obama’s admission even) but instead it requires judicial interpretation of the Constitution in regards to what is already known.
I have faith that the Supreme Court will hear this case and give an interpretation on the natural born citizen clause.
You said — “Do you think that’s it? Just guessing, but most FReeprs are Christian or Jewish, aren’t they? they should welcome WND.”
Yeah, there are a goodly number of Christians on Free Republic (thank goodness...), but there is a very vocal number who are not (on this “political board”).
And also there is an “anti-Corsi” bunch here, too — I’ve noticed and since Corsi is primarily on WorldNetDaily, they go after that website, too. Remember Corsi is the one that wrote the book that sunk Kerry in the last Bush election.
And since I’ve been reading some comments on some conservative sites (and here, too) about Christians keeping “religion out of politics” — it’s obvious that there is that group hanging around in the Republican Party.
And if you want to see a “real hate fest” going on in some thread here, just start one about how Evolution is incompatible with God and His Word and that the Creation account is the true and accurate story of how the world was created and how we came about.
Anyone on the Creation side of things, per the Bible, will be considered to be idiots and against science, even though there are a lot of scientists who back up the Bible account of Creation.
There is a big underlying current (here) of anti-Christian feeling. There are a number who would like to see the end of Christianity in anything to do with the Republican Party...
Thanks for the alert! The GOP is eating its own, driving away longtime republicans & discouraging indies too. I just never thought there would be any other than a tiny fraction here on FR. Noonanites, Parkeroids, Horowackies...?
I have faith that the Supreme Court will hear this case and give an interpretation on the natural born citizen clause."”
Thank you for your civility in making your case. There is too little of that around here these days. Re your first sentence, I'll wager that if an attorney gets to argue this case before the Supremes, s/he will not say “The question as to whether Obama is eligible for the Presidency is NOT a question that needs [requires] evidence...”
As to your second sentence, I'll reserve my faith for use in religious practice, but you are free to use yours as you see fit. Like you, I await the Court's decision on hearing any case petitioned re Obama’s eligibility. Looks like yours is the only reply to my post so far. No one wants to answer my question re the lack of interest by Constitutional scholars in the issue. No one has any evidence that Obama is ineligible under the Constitution given a layman's reading. I will grant you that the Justices could take a different view. For now, we wait.
1. Obama won the election.
2. We know the media and Republicans aren't following up on the judicial side of the question dealing with his “natural born” status.
3. We know many so-called conservatives, including you, are calling people who agree to the above two things, “kooks,” “crazies,” and “fringies.”.
4. We know that you and Medved believe that people who stood outside of the Supreme Court this past week awaiting the news on the two Obama cases before the court believe such people are both “pathetic and sad”.
5. We know you and Medved said the Supreme Court would throw these out in “4 minutes or less,” on last Friday, which it didn't, as they held it through the weekend for one case, and continue to hold onto the second while bringing up a third this week. So you and Medved were wrong on this, too.
It appears YOU are the one calling us “kooks,” “crazies,” and “fringies” here on Free Republic and otherwise telling us all such things. I am not talking to Bush or McCain or Palin on these issues—what they do or not doesn't influence what you say to our faces on Free Republic. My beef is not with their words or the lack thereof. It is with you and your words, deriding myself and others here for what you apparently would be glad to have happen. So you are making fun of us for something you also hope would happen.
You are crazy, Star.
Don't forget to bring your girls to protect you. Hey, Alia, care to defend Star again?
Ummmmm Hot Air. Why even submit it for conference in the first place? Why not just Deny it the second time? How about this Morrissey. The Wrotnowski case is better written and does not have the same baggage that Donfrio case had. They chose the best of the two.
Actually, Hot Air omitted the obvious reasons why it was denied, if he was following these cases closely.
An application to the Supreme Court for a stay must be made to a single Justice-- there is one assigned to each region of the country. If the assigned Justice denies the stay, you can re-file the same motion with any other Justice you want. When that happens, 99% of the time, the second Justice will forward the application to the full Court, so it can be denied definitively; otherwise, the same motion could be made to each of the 9 Justices, one after the other. So there is nothing of any significance in Scalia's or Thomas's referrals to the full court. They rejected Donofrio's motion 0-9, without comment, and they will do the same with Cort's.
Those who took up the cause of the American Revolution were also in the minority at the time, and look what they accomplished.
It doesn’t matter that the majority are composed of idiots, traitors, and fools - it is right and proper to fight for this.
?
Talk yourself out of this if you like, but it remains Obama’s responsibility to qualify, under our Constitution. It is not the people’s responsibility to qualify him.
Read Amendment XX Section 3 “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify...”
It doesn’t matter how this situation came to be. It exists. The simple solution, is for Obama to adhere to the constitutional mandate, and qualify himself by presenting proof of his qualification. That can only be done by presentation of his original birth certificate. Doing anything else is simply wrong, and highly suspect.
You said — “Those who took up the cause of the American Revolution were also in the minority at the time, and look what they accomplished.”
The leaders were Christians and they believed in forming this nation under Christian principles and doctrines and established in the schools in the nation the Bible as a textbook as they figured that it was important for all the people to be trained in what the Bible taught.
The culture of that time *did* believe in the Creator God of the Bible and also they prayed that the Creator God of the Bible would help them found this new nation and once founded would help maintain it.
Today, the leaders of this nation want to remove the Bible and anything it says from all things in the government and have nothing at all to do with the training of the people.
In light of that, the Bible says that a nation who has leaders who are fools — this will cause the people to suffer. We will suffer as a result of these fools who want to abandon God in this nation. As long as this nation goes that route — *no minority* of people (Christian or otherwise) will overcome what the fools have done. And God will bring judgement upon the whole nation, as a result.
It does seem that Obama is that judgement that God has brought upon this nation...
—
And then you said — “It doesn’t matter that the majority are composed of idiots, traitors, and fools - it is right and proper to fight for this.”
It’s not right to fight an armed revolution against our government if that’s what you’re saying. On the other hand, it’s right and proper to fight for what is a proper government — “one nation under God” — through the means that were given to us by the founding fathers. But, this will fail — unless — our nation, as a whole turns back to God. That’s the *key issue* and short of that — all else will fail — whether it’s a majority or minority.
No one will prevail against God’s judgement of this nation if people continue down this pathway of abandoning God and the Bible in the public sphere and in this government and in the schools...
And, once again, it does appear that Obama is part of God’s judgement against this nation for turning away from Him...
You were saying the following...
Okay, so, both myself and others here are saying:
1. Obama won the election.
2. We know the media and Republicans aren’t following up on the judicial side of the question dealing with his “natural born” status.
3. We know many so-called conservatives, including you, are calling people who agree to the above two things, “kooks,” “crazies,” and “fringies.”.
4. We know that you and Medved believe that people who stood outside of the Supreme Court this past week awaiting the news on the two Obama cases before the court believe such people are both “pathetic and sad”.
5. We know you and Medved said the Supreme Court would throw these out in “4 minutes or less,” on last Friday, which it didn’t, as they held it through the weekend for one case, and continue to hold onto the second while bringing up a third this week. So you and Medved were wrong on this, too.
On #1 and #2 for the most part, okay. On #3, you’ll notice that I’ve been saying that you’re being “kookified” (an offshoot of being “demonized”...). That’s specifically what I’m referring to. You’re trying to characterize it as something different than what I’m telling you.
You *are* being “kookified” and being portrayed as the fringe element. That’s a fact. Just because I recognize that this sort of thing is happening doesn’t mean that I’m the one who is doing it.
On #4 — you won’t find those words in any of my comments...
on #5 — you also won’t find me saying how quick that the Supreme Court will throw these things out. Yes, I am saying they will say “Denied...” No doubt about that. It’s already started. The bottom line is that the election is not going to be overturned, no matter what... No one in power (or the various branches of government) wants to deal with anything like that — so they will do everything that they can to avoid it.
===== ===== =====
And then you said — “It appears YOU are the one calling us “kooks,” “crazies,” and “fringies” here on Free Republic and otherwise telling us all such things. I am not talking to Bush or McCain or Palin on these issues—what they do or not doesn’t influence what you say to our faces on Free Republic. My beef is not with their words or the lack thereof. It is with you and your words, deriding myself and others here for what you apparently would be glad to have happen. So you are making fun of us for something you also hope would happen.”
No, you haven’t found me calling these other people kooks or crazies. What I’ve been saying is that people who are going after this Obama Birth Certificate issue in the hopes of the election being overturned — are being portrayed as kooks. There’s a difference in recognizing what is being done — versus — doing that very thing yourself.... LOL...
You and others are *definitely* being “kookified” (similar to being demonized, in order to marginalize you...). That’s what is happening. If you can’t see it, then you’re blind. I’m not the one who is active on that campaign... I’m calling *attention* to the fact of what is happening here...
===== ===== =====
And then you said — “You are crazy, Star.”
Well, my reference to you being crazy was if you think that you’re going to have an armed revolution against our government. If you think so — I said you were crazy. If you don’t, then that doesn’t apply.
So, remember, I’m not the one calling for an armed revolution against our government no matter who wins the election and no matter what the Supreme Court does...
===== ===== =====
And then, finally, you said — “Don’t forget to bring your girls to protect you. Hey, Alia, care to defend Star again?”
God protects those who depend upon Him... you should learn that one...
The brave people who prevailed against the British Empire to create this country waged just such a fight.
You can contend that we are outnumbered, and have no hope of success in this fight, but do not attempt to persuade us that our cause is without merit.
You said — “You can contend that we are outnumbered, and have no hope of success in this fight, but do not attempt to persuade us that our cause is without merit.”
The “outnumbered” part is not the relevant part. It’s the “without God” part that is relevant. No matter what the numbers are, you are not going to win, absent God, in this society.
That’s the thing that the founding fathers recognized and God did help them found this country on the basis of their belief and trust in Him...
“I am listening to Michael Medved right now. He has some choice words for people who filed those suits on the Obama birth certificate issue. Among other things, he describes them as “fringies” and “crazies.”
He also described those who are holding a vigil outside the SCOTUS building awaiting tomorrow's decision as pathetic and sad.
Medved predicted that SCOTUS would throw out the case and it would take them 4 minutes or less of deliberation (he was probably employing a bit of hyperbole about the 4 minute thing).
Needless to say, he's right on this. :) “
On Thursday, you also said this, in regards to pursuing any court case on Obama’s legitimacy:
“Don’t you think it’s a bit late to be pursuing this?”
You also said, in regards to someone asking about the questions about residency concerning both McCain and Obama that “They’re both silly.”
Although today you've said you'd be happy if something came of these lawsuits, you said on Thursday, “I think the birth certificate issue ir right up there with the North American Union and the Amero. “
That same day, you said that of those who want this vetted who aren't Nazis that “The rest are just loony, not anti-Semitic.”
On Friday, you said about the Obama legitimacy issues, “However, the kooks don't care if it makes conservatives look crazy and incapable of engaging in sober debate on real issues. They consider it a badge of honor.”
You are not only saying that others are “kookifying” those with questions about Obama, YOU are ALSO independently choosing to do so. When you say, “Just because I recognize that this sort of thing is happening doesn’t mean that I’m the one who is doing it,” you are grossly misreading what your hands are typing onto Free Republic. You are completely responsible for what you are saying. Get real, Star. Or, do you think whatever you may say is your “alternate personality” saying it and not you?
You end by saying you can't be found saying you believe the people at the Supreme Court are “pathetic and sad” or that you thought that the Court would throw out the cases in “4 minutes or less”, but you said you agreed with Medved when he said the exact same thing.
Which personality are we talking with tonight, Star? You seem to not take responsibility for your words.
That's a man of conviction, for you. A great little liberal there.
For those who are curious, all of my references come from the following thread, which Star was responsible for posting:
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.