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 ...
The USS Kreep sailed in a different direction. I may look in again on him.
Interesting riff on “arbitrary.” What would you call J. Brennan’s mysterious kill-your-babies penumbra?
Amen!
Interesting riff on “arbitrary.” What would you call J. Brennan’s mysterious kill-your-babies penumbra?
If you look further down in the thread I clarified which definition was used.
Webster:AR-BI-TRAR-Y(adj) Arrived at without allowing argument or objection.
The person that it was directed to either has a limited vocabulary thinking words only have one meaning, his and choose to ignore the post or has problems with reading comprehension.
I report, you decide. (IRUD)
To say this is sore loserman on a site like FR where you can't turn around without someone forcing(and rightly so) you to document what you just said, are about to say, will say, is either stupid or covering something up on their part.
Few sites if any on the web document what their claims are better than FR. Posters on here earn or lose their reps every day and once again rightly so.
I hate to get conspiratorial or make claims without much of any substantiation but after 30 years on the air I don't have a clue why the big guns in conservative talk have not picked up this entire certifigate topic and ran with it as they usually would.
One of the rumors floating around is that were Obama to be decertified, not allowed to become a sitting potus, that riots by various members of voting blocks would be near endless.
IMHO this is little if any reason to junk the constitution.
Other rumors are that he will be seated anyway so why bother,duhhh... why be here at all if we don't bother on this one!!
Yet another talk of the town is that we would only get Biden or have to do a redo and considering the sad state of the economy the timing is bad for that.
All three excuses and there are probably more,are lamer than lame IMHO.
Perhaps the biggest of all excuses is that the entire fiasco is nothing more than a well laid trap by rabid Dem/DNC/socialists/operatives bent on making us look foolish.
IF this is the case produce all the missing docs and most of us will shut up. Seeing no documentation on anything from where he went to college, his grades, friends,associates, etc. etc.I won't shut up.
We have a number,an increasing number, of unanswered questions from "who is this guy" to "who was his real mother" to "who is she" and every stone we unturn only leads to more and more unanswered questions.
As long as we keep documenting what we do and remaining sort of the retro journalists of last resort we have nothing or anyone to apologize to. And we are at the point where they worry about us, we don't worry about them. I like that.
Once again thanks for your tireless work on certifigate and all you do for the New Media.
It's the one he was traveling on in 1981 that everybody is interested in.
They voted for BO because they though he was the outsider and therefore least connected with "Big Government". The R party should have never selected a Washington insider as a candidate. Folks are just fed up with Washington, corrupt politicians, reckless spending......
I'm not sure if it's the topic I don't take seriously or just you.
The Clinton staffers are already in place for the new administration. Maybe now we know why.
Your welcome and I agree.
OTOH What did she know and when did she know it.
It seems to mean that the preservation and restoration of the Rule of Law and the Constitution is not among their concerns.
They have done much that is helpful and informative but on these issues they seem to be clueless.
"That's not an answer. On what grounds is he illegible?"
"Please try to keep up, that answer was based on the assumption that the Court ruled that he was not a natural born citizen."
Keep up yourself. I was responding to a flat statement that he will be removed from office.
"...when the SCOTUS makes their decision he WILL be removed from office and arrested for fraud..."
Hence the question, on what grounds?
Saying the court will rule against him doesn't answer the question. WHY will they rule against him? WHY will they decide he isn't a natural born citizen?
Some people are naturalized citizens, that's true. But if you have citizenship by birth you are a natural born citizen.
A birth certificate is considered legal proof of place of birth.
You don't trust him. Fine. You shouldn't. But that's why there's the added provision of the state confirming the birth certificate.
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.