Posted on 01/09/2009 8:28:39 PM PST by devere
Chief Justice John Roberts has sent a full-throated challenge of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility to conference: Lightfoot v. Bowen (SCOTUS docket page). I.O. interviewed Lightfoot lead attorney, Orly Taitz at 2:20pm CT, today, minutes after she learned of this move.
Taitz believes, “This is Chief Justice Roberts telling the Congress… the other eight Justices, that there is a problem with this election.”
The Lightfoot case has legal standing, due to litigant, Libertarian Gail Lightfoot’s vice presidential candidacy in California. It also address two major issues of legal merit: 1. Obama’s failure to provide legally evidentiary documentation of citizenship and American birth and, 2. his United Kingdom citizenship at birth, passed to him by his Kenyan father when that nation was a British colony. (Other current challenges also submit that Obama’s apparent status as an Indonesian citizen, as a child, would have caused his American citizenship to be revoked.) This case is therefore considered the strongest yet, to be heard by the Supreme Court. Obama challenger, Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.
Roberts was submitted this case on 12/29, originally a petition for an injunction against the State of California’s Electoral College vote. His action comes one day before the Congress is to certify the Electoral College votes electing Barack Obama, 1/8. The conference called by Roberts is scheduled for 1/23. Orly Taitz is not deterred by the conference coming after the inauguration, which is to be held 1/20, “If they find out that he was not eligible, then they can actually rescind the election; the whole inauguration and certification were not valid.” The strongest time for legal and judicial rulings are generally after the fact.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthardknox.com ...
Well the fix was in on trade with communist China past the point where it was beneficial and we are now in big trouble.
And the fix was in on trashing the patent office and the small inventor-entrepreneur despite initial resistance and stout work by Ileana Ross-Lehtinen and a handful of others.
There are many other instances where the Republicans have failed to effectively oppose.
Political parties are not in the Constitution yet present major party has effectively stopped the steady creep of a “penumbra” to put them there as engineered by Kennedy and Dukakis.
should be “no present major party”
Would be nice to actually find out the truth of where his live birth took place.
bttt
I never see the names of any RINOS, the RNC, or Republican elected leaders (and some conservative talk show hosts) doing squat on this issue except for a mild remark once in a blue moon.
WE pull the cart for these chickens and leeches while they drink white wine and neck with each other inside the cart.
If, on the odd chance, Obama bites the bullet on this birth issue, these same "Republicans" will be right out in front with their limo chains pulling the cart as they wave and take the credit.
Leni
Do the US and Kenya share extradition? I bet they don’t....
Now you are the one asking for evidence/proof of a negative.
I would think that there should be evidence that such is routinely done. If it is, then it was probably done in Obama's case.
But since there is apparently no one responsible for checking the qualification of someone to be President, I would not expect that anyone does it for Senators. Clearly the Senate has the power to do that, it's in the Constitution's Article I, Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,
But they apparently only do it on an "exception" basis. Thus I see no problem with making an exception of Barack Hussien Obama, who acknowledges having a foreign citizen father and step father, and who has been very "close" with his records, such as college records as well as others, as compared with other recent Presidents-elect.
Your words, not theirs. They are saying things like "prohibited" or "restricted". It's quite possible, although I do not know, that Pakistan would not issue visas for "tourist" visits, but would allow "business" travel, or would allow "official" travel, but not "private" travel. I'm pretty sure there were at least travel warnings for Pakistan back then, as there is today or advisories/alerts as there is now for India
“politically correct capons in DC”
What an elegant turn of phrase!
>>>and the state of Hawaii confirms that they have the original records ***the certificate is based on***?
That is a lie. Provide quote and source.
IMO it has become a tool so that the judge does not have to be on record of having an opinion and it therefore does not expose their lack of knowledge and preparedness.....Purely egotistical, and political.
Another failure of our education system. No doubt lack of standing is overused, but in no way will Keyes lack standing.
They cannot blame it on the VRWC, Berg is not a member. I dent issue him a card at our last meeting and can verify he hasn't paid his dues.
Next months meeting has been canceled due to apathy.
The only conclusion I can come to is they’re scared - of many things. They are tainted with self-serving motives more than desire to find truth.
They’ve already made their obeisance to 0bama by not touching this - fear crippled appeaser eunuchs.
FYI, OneTimeComment, this person (Non-Sequitur) is not bothered by the discussion of this issue. Matter of face, this person is merely playing games and does not take this issue seriously at all. I believe that is the definition of a “troll”. They are simply posting in order to disrupt the debate as a way of amusing themselves.
Quote from Non-Sequitur: “I don’t care if you move on or not. In fact, I hope you don’t. I’ve found all these threads most amusing. If you move on then there goes my entertainment.”
This person is definitely not being intellectually honest and in my opinion, should be ignored.
Since most expect some unrest, it seems feasible that the powers that be want to diminish the time from when it becomes public knowledge and when the final SCOTUS decision is made. (Justice take time to get it right.) It is only then that a smooth transition can take place in a minimal amount of time.
Thanks for the information. The lack of vetting of presidential candidates is no laughing matter.
Seems like Horowitz and LGF are lost in the relativism.
It’s been done before
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From:
Kenyans voiced approval today for the extradition to the United States of two suspects in the Aug. 7 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, even though the bomb exploded on their soil and all but 12 of the 253 people killed in the blast were Kenyans.
The fear, they said in interviews today, is that high-profile legal proceedings might invite another devastating terrorist strike.
“We don’t want that in Kenya,” said John Munyambo, an airport worker in this coastal city. “That was our first one. Should be the last one.”
Yes. It is coupled with the elimination of the “duty to decide,” which was a big mistake. It is appalling that judges so engage in avoiding responsibility. We also could do without “unpublished opinions” and there is no good reason not to allow cameras and recorders in the courtrooms if they do not have flashes or make noise. We need transparency in the courts and we are not getting it.
There is nothing arbitrary about how the Court operates. They are the actual real life processes by which the Supreme Court goes about its job of interpreting the Constitution.
There is no conflict between them being arbitrary and being real life processes. If they are not arbitrary, then they must be in either the Constitution or the statute law, although even statute law could be arbitrary, like various age limits for drinking, driving, etc. If they are merely the rules of the Court, the Court could, change or waive them if they wishwsm and probably have in the past.
I suspect you are using a different defintion of arbitary than hoosiermama. Here are four from the American Heritage dictionary:
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
I believe she was using #3 or close to that, while you seem to be using something more like #1, with emphasis on whim and impluse.
Using definition #3, the Court’s decision in Marbury v Madison of 1803 was “arbitary” since Article II does not establish a priniciple of Judicial Review as a function of the Supreme Court and yet that “arbitrary” decision has become the primary modus operendi of the Court for the last 206 years.
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.