Justice Kennedy rejects 2 more challenges to Obama

AP via SFGate ^ | 12/17/8

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.

Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .

[MHGinTN]

From the leftist media article: “Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961 to an American mother and a Kenyan father.” That has yet to be proven, but you can understand a leftist Obama-worshipping sycophant trying to float that lie for their messiah.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “I say it. Obama is disqualified. Others have filed court cases saying the same thing. Those courts punted due to lack of standing. Did you know that as a voter you have no standing in the process? And yet, here you are deriding those who fight against such evil.”

Okay, you “say” it... And now we know that this statement is meaningless... LOL...

I should have thought you would know enough to understand that you can’t say it with any authority — without — proof that he is unqualified... But..., that’s the point that escapes you.

And it’s precisely this point that I said represents the “failure of the process” — which also indicates why we need state laws to vet the candidates.

—

You said — “I have. And the process is theoretically still in place for vetting the candidate.”

I know of *no state* which has any law that refuses to place a candidate legally on the ballot (for President of the United States) without him proving that he has met the qualifications. Show me the law and what state it is in...

I would like to see that one...

AND..., if you can’t — then that addresses *precisely* the deficiency in the state electoral process for President of the United States. It needs to be address at the Electoral College level, on a state-by-state basis, in which no one can be placed on the ballot unless they have proven that they have met the requirements.

[hoosiermama]

You were just given some mis-information The justice only denied the writ not the entire case. The case itself is still pending.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “That has yet to be proven, but you can understand a leftist Obama-worshipping sycophant trying to float that lie for their messiah.”

From what I can see, it doesn’t have to be “proven” — and thus — this is the deficiency in the process. And this is why we need state laws requiring that for each states electoral college votes — that is that the candidate cannot be on the ballot unless they have proven that they have met the requirements for the office.

[Red Steel]

I see nothing that would require them to act against Obama. There’s nothing to show that there is a violation of the Constitution. When the cases are “moot” because he is President, the Supreme Court will dismiss them, being that it’s an issue for Congress. The Supreme Court cannot remove a President, only Congress can.

Congress won’t remove this President any more than now, because no one has come up with anything to show that Obama is *not* qualified. With “nothing to show” there will be no impeachment...

The court docket for the cases against Obama are still active as you know. Congress will have to act if Obama is not a natural born citizen. There may be nothing to compel them to act but overwhelming public pressure. They are not going to throw themselves under the bus for Obama because they would get kicked out of Congress in the next election cycle. Yes, give the the Republicans the biggest campaign issue in our nation's history and see what happens. Say goodbye to Dems in Congress. Say hello to impeachment and the removal of "president" Obama in the next congressional session.

They'd do nothing - ROTFL!!

[rodguy911]

AP=Arrogance Personified

[Star Traveler]

I believe you were quoting the article — “Instead, the Supreme Court should be reminded by way of a follow-up suit after the Legislative branch has exhausted the electoral process that the chosen nominee, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, is very likely an ineligible candidate for the presidency.”

It will be a moot issue when Obama is sworn into office. At that time the Supreme Court can do nothing to remove Obama from office, nor should they. It’s not their business, at that time.

It would be the job of Congress to bring forth charges against President Obama. And, I seriously doubt that we’ll find the Congress bringing impeachment charges against Obama

[rodguy911]

There may be nothing to compel them to act but overwhelming public pressure.

Exactly, and that's why we have needed talk radio on this topic! why they aren't I don't know.

[MHGinTN]

Stop wiping your nasty ass with MY CONSTITUTION. disgusting sycophant

[Star Traveler]

You said — “ Congress will have to act if Obama is not a natural born citizen.”

There’s the “Catch-22” situation... There’s nothing to show that he’s *not* a natural born citizen. In fact, he purports to show that he is actually a natural born citizen, by the documentation that he has provided.

That’s why Congress will not be forced into action.

[drjimmy]

BZZZT, wrong. We are directly in lineage back to post #3 which says they’re gunshy, not corrupt. Take your argument where it exists, not where you want it to exist.

Gee, Kezmo, why did you not quote the entirety of post #3? The part that claims "This is simply a P.R. move" by the Supreme Court. If you don't think that arguing that the Supreme Court bases its decisions on P.R. is the same as arguing that it is corrupt, you have no place questioning anyone else's understanding of logic. You've also ignored the point made that earlier threads have had comments claiming that the Supreme Court is corrupt on this topic. So your denial of "lineage" regarding the original post is simply wrong. But thanks for playing.

[Aquinasfan]

What will happen later when we find out it's true, the Obamination was ineligible to serve ... what are these judges going to say then ?

Apparently, that's a chance they're willing to take.

[Cicero]

Well, what’s significant, of course, is that Kennedy is the famous Fifth Vote.

It only takes 4 votes to put it on the docket, but they may not want to do that if they know Kennedy will vote against and perhaps set an unfortunate precedent that the Native Born clause of the Constitution no longer matters.

Of course we knew that Souter the Pervert would vote against, so his earlier denials were to be expected, but Kennedy was a bit more uncertain.

I guess he’s looking forward to cocktail parties at the Obama White House and doesn’t want to rock the boat.

[jamese777]

You were just given some mis-information The justice only denied the writ not the entire case. The case itself is still pending.

---

A petition for a Writ of Certiorari is a request to hear a case before the US Supreme Court. If the writ is denied that means that the case will not be heard.
It can be “pending” forever but the denial of the writ effectively ends the legal issue before the US Supreme Court.

[Aquinasfan]

That is exactly what Obama has produced - NOTHING to show what hospital he was born in!

Isn't the word of a guy who hangs out with terrorists and Marxists, and who voted three times in favor of legalized infanticide, good enough for you?

[Star Traveler]

You said — “top wiping your nasty ass with MY CONSTITUTION. disgusting sycophant”

I see that this type of “dialogue” is in keeping with the nature of the types of arguments that are given here to do something about an issue which no one has an ounce of proof for... LOL..

—

Of course, it’s entirely too simple of a solution to provide a law for the Secretary of State to vet a candidate for office. That would not be in keeping with the natural inclination of the mindless to vent rage at a candidate they don’t want or like. A solution, you see, takes away the ability to continually vent... :-)

[nominal]

“There’s nothing to show that he’s *not* a natural born citizen. In fact, he purports to show that he is actually a natural born citizen, by the documentation that he has provided.”

Wrong. He has admittedly shown *native* citizenship (and only if we take him at his word).

[Star Traveler]

And that shows the deficiency of the process by which we have vetted the candidates. And thus, it shows why we will have to put into place state laws regarding the electoral college votes and requiring proof that a candidate is qualified...

[Kevmo]

I should have thought you would know enough to understand that you can’t say it with any authority — without — proof that he is unqualified... But..., that’s the point that escapes you.
***Yes, you should have said that. And if you’re trying to make a point next time, maybe you should just shave your head... LOL.

And it’s precisely this point that I said represents the “failure of the process” — which also indicates why we need state laws to vet the candidates.
***I said, “We’re right at that point in the 20th amendment in the constitution and we’ve got REMF jerks like you shooting at us for not having our bootlaces tied correctly.” And you are going on about what happened in the past, during the state and party vetting processes. Of course that should be fixed, and I’ve stated in other threads that I foresee about 30 states coming up with more stringent requirements in the future. You need to figure out where you are on the timeline. Quit deriding FReepers for the past when we’re in the present. Catch up, REMF.
Representative Presents Proof of Citizenship Bill (2012 Obama Showdown)
Sunday, December 14, 2008 2:56:35 PM · by CalifScreaming · 61 replies · 2,007+ views
Arkansasmatters.com ^ | December 13, 2008
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2148734/posts

—

You said — “I have. And the process is theoretically still in place for vetting the candidate.”
***It is in place: the 20th amendment, right where it says the president elect fails to qualify. The framers of the constitution understood that the requirements for the candidate might be glossed over in the excitement to get an electable guy out to the public. But you seem to have not understood that.

I know of *no state* which has any law that refuses to place a candidate legally on the ballot (for President of the United States) without him proving that he has met the qualifications. Show me the law and what state it is in...
***As I stated, we are at the point where qualification takes place, AFTER the president elect may fail to qualify per the 20th amendment. You’re trying to steer the discussion back to the past, which is still invalid. For instance, Donofrio vs. Wells was against the SoS of Donofrio’s state because three candidates were not vetted to their constitutional requirements. Two of those three were Obama and McCain. So if you’re going to deride FReepers in the present over PAST issues and behavior, then dig up PAST threads and deride them there.

I would like to see that one...
***So would I, so go fetch.

AND..., if you can’t — then that addresses *precisely* the deficiency in the state electoral process for President of the United States.
***I have no intention of playing fetch with you over past issues. If you really want this to happen, you’ll dig up past threads where this past issue was discussed in the past, and take it up with those FReepers who seem to have so disappointed you in the past. While you’re digging up bones in the graveyard, say hello to Obama’s Gramma for all of us.

It needs to be address at the Electoral College level, on a state-by-state basis, in which no one can be placed on the ballot unless they have proven that they have met the requirements.
***I agree, but your little point is completely out of place in the timeline that we are in with regards to this constitutional issue. Get your facts straight. Get your constitution straight. Get your timelines straight. And then get yourself into a critical thinking class, you need it.

[Frantzie]

Orly Taitz is a good woman and she knows what it is like to live in a police state - the USSR.