This man is an absolute @ss.
Seems to me that now that FITZMAS is here, Obama’s first step toward federal prison on a political corruption charge should start with formal discovery that he wasn’t even born here ~ just another illegal alien.
This could all come to an end with Obama’s BC.
Is that what I am? A “Birther”? Nice to know I have a kook name!!
Birther for life.
Hot Air = Spineless, unprincipled, Republican hacks
“Wrotnowski’s petition was initially denied by Ginsburg and then refiled with Scalia,...”
Shouldn’t that tell this bonehead something. Ginsburg is a marxist hag who doesn’t care whether or not 0 was born in the US. Scalia cares about the constitution. This stupid article, rant, whatever assumes Scalia and Thomas are a couple of Neo-cons trying to overturn an election.
Question for anyone who knows:
Are these conferences required for the Supreme Court to reject hearing a case?
From my understanding the answer is no.
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?
Just so that it wouldn’t get re-filed to another Jusitce?
The article says — “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.”
—
Yep, that’s what the end result is, no matter which “side” of the Supreme Court looks at the issue. It sounds exactly like what they are doing, looking at and then — “Denied”...
That puts an *end* to a particular case and to refiling for that case. They’re busy *putting an end* to all these cases. The Supreme Court might be done with that task, by the time Obama is inaugurated ....
It’s like I’ve been saying all along — all those in positions of authority or even the ones that we have as our own candidates or leaders of our own party say that this is nothing and that Obama is going to be the next President of the United States...
From a previous post of mine...
So, you had better get ready for Obama for many years, because that is what is going to happen.
It’s the same thing that Rush Limbaugh has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Bush has decided is going to happen, the same thing that McCain has decided is going to happen, the same thing that Palin has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Republican Party has decided is going to happen, the same thing that the Electoral College will decide is going to happen (being “packed” with “Obots”), the same thing that the controlling majority of Congress has decided is going to happen (being packed with Democrats), the same thing that the majority of the voting public has decided is going to happen (voted for Obama by a large margin), the same thing that the Supreme has apparently decided is going to happen (i.e., “Denied...”) — and so — why do you think it’s going to be different because you want to adhere to the Constitution?
And there you have it...
What is the lesson that Ginsburg and Souter are sending?
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.
Hot air is a good name for them.
“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
Apparently "most of us" have no clue what the case was about.
The amount of ignorance on this subject is breathtaking. I'm not talking about tinfoil-hat stuff, I mean just straightforward facts - like what the dismissed case was actually about (NOT the birth certificate).
This is getting much too reminiscent of the 2000 election.
If you accuse you must bring evidence. There is no evidence that Obama is not a natural born citizen (Supposition, rumors and hearsay are not evidence). By evidence I mean documentary evidence, which is what is required to make the case. “Grandma says” is not going to do.
“The COLB is a forgery” does not prove Obama is not a natural born citizen. Insisting that Obama produce evidence is silly and is not going to happen. Invoking an undying belief in the sanctity of the Constitution is not evidence of anything. There are conservative Constitutional law experts in this country, why are they ignoring this story? They ignore it because there is no evidence.
Insisting that showing of a birth certificate is required for various things is not evidence against Obama. I have read many stories and claims on this subject and I have yet to see any actual e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the USA. Show me a document that proves Obama’s citizenship or birthplace to be a problem and I’ll be on board.
What is Malkin thinking here? How does she equate people who are concerned about how we determine, in today’s world of easy international travel, which of our candidates for President are truly natural born (without a clear definition of the term in today’s world) with those who think our President engineered Osama bin Laden’s attack on 9/11/01?
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.
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.
Proud to be a birther.
A case going to conference is automatic if a justice denies the original application and the applicant reapplies to a second justice.
From the supreme court website>>>>>>
•
If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred
to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure
A case being referred to conference does not indicat a case either does or does not have merit, it simply means a case has been submitted to two different justices
Link:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf