Interview, Orly Taitz: Chief Justice Roberts Calls Conference on Obama Challenge: Lightfoot v. Bowen

Fort Hard Knox ^ | January 7, 2009 | Arlen Williams

[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.

[Deepest End]

Here's what SCOTUS will do. They'll deny his case 0-9 with no comment as they've done to every case prior.

If there is "no comment", as has been the case, then how do you know it's "0-9"? Or are you that pesky fly on the wall in the closed conference room?

[IrishCatholic]

Perhaps you can ask your dad why all the challenges have been sent to conference and then disposed of.

Are they defective? I mean as how they were written or presented?

Is this a procedural process where the cases that will move forward are simply going through the normal process?

Is there issues with the clerks as Donofrio alleged?

Does your father believe the justices will act on the law or will they instead act because of the social ramifications?

It is hard to find info among the flame wars. I would be interested if your dad could say why he was so certain this would see the light of day. Frankly I am not so certain they will act on the law. It is a powder keg just waiting to go off.

[trumandogz]

I did not read that fact in the Constitution. Could you please point me to the place in The US Constitution?

[trumandogz]

You only need Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

[devere]

“If they do this, I expect that before the election Obama will declare that he is a one term president. He will develop a vague illness and need more time with his family”

Then let’s enact another law that all ex-Presidents have to prove their citizenship to collect their pension and keep their Secret Service protection. That will save a few dollars.

[jamese777]

There is not one post on this thread that shows even the slightest bit of knowledge of how the Supreme Court operates and what the “cert pool” is and how Petitions For Writs of Certiorari are subject to “the rule of four.”
I urge folks to learn just a bit about the Supreme Court before posting nonsense that is embarrassing in its ignorance of high court procedures that should have been learned in any half way decent Civics class.

There is no case on appeal currently before the US Supreme Court asking to remove Barack Hussein Obama from the Presidency or to invalidate the election.

[hoosiermama]

Both Leo and COrt’s cases said the fault lay with the SoS (not doing their job).....There is no law that states that IS their job.SO, the SoS would win the case.

In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to VET in conference, it wasn't the SoS of each state., therefore they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold BO accountable.

The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense. You will notice that neither cases were completely released but pending. They can be revisited and opinions may be written on them when a final release is given.

Berg's case OTOH places the burden on the candidate, the party, and the FEC. Berg, however, did not have standing until yesterday to present his case. He now has standing (as Keyes and the other CA cases have)

If you read the link above it explains how the SCOTUS is playing chess with BHO and has him in Check Mate.

[hoosiermama]

Writs of Certiorari
“the rule of four.”
and

.. Standing , are arbitrary terms established for the smooth working of the judiciary system. They are not laws established by the Constitution.

[jamese777]

“Writs of Certiorari
“the rule of four.”
and

.. Standing , are arbitrary terms established for the smooth working of the judiciary system. They are not laws established by the Constitution.”

---

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.
For example, in this case, the Constitution says nothing about how to determine natural born citizen status or who should determine it. It is mute on that subject. If a justice is conservative and a “strict constructionist,” they might well decide that if the Constitution says nothing on a subject, that means that it is left to the states to decide (states’ rights under the 10th Amendment).
If a justice is liberal and believes the Constitution is a “living document” then they might go ahead and infer an interpretation in what the Founders meant to say in determining who is a “natural born citizen.” They might well vest that authority in Congress.

The persons who would be the most likely to have “standing” in this legal situation would be the people who were most directly harmed by an allegedly ineligible candidate: John McCain and Sarah Palin. But they choose not to get involved in any of these suits. The McCain-Palin campaign and the Republican Party didn’t even submit amicus (friend of the court) briefs in support of any of the legal challenges.

[Kevmo]

Deepest End: If there is “no comment”, as has been the case, then how do you know it’s “0-9”? Or are you that pesky fly on the wall in the closed conference room?

jamese777:
There is not one post on this thread that shows even the slightest bit of knowledge of how the Supreme Court operates
and blah blah blah...
***Can you see that you never bothered to answer the guy’s guestion? I can see why you ended up on lj’s list of CoLB trolls. That was a beautiful example of obfuscation and misdirection. Why don’t you just answer the question, you miserable POS troll?

and what the “cert pool” is and how Petitions For Writs of Certiorari are subject to “the rule of four.”
I urge folks to learn just a bit about the Supreme Court before posting nonsense
***That’s great. Now we’re expected to be friggin’ experts on the inner workings of the SCOTUS. No thanks. That’s a combo classic fallacy — the appeal to the gallery (of knowledge) + an argument from silence (most of us have a silence of knowledge on this issue) + as I said, obfuscation. Maybe when you trolls lay off the classic fallacies, us normal freepers will start to read up more on constitutional procedures. It would help if those who knew and understood the process would answer the posts to them, but they appear to be too FReepin’ busy showing off their knowledge to higher mortals than us.

that is embarrassing in its ignorance of high court procedures that should have been learned in any half way decent Civics class.
***Bull Shiite. Plenty of us FReepers have been through half way decent civics classes, but you trolls seem to have trouble with the critical thinking classes. Take a 1/4 decent critical thinking class and then I’ll measure it up to my 1/2 decent civics class and we’ll still need to rely on guys like Congressman Billybob for specialized knowledge.

[Kevmo]

In Conference, they probably talked about who was responsible to VET, it wasn’t the SoS of each state, therefore they did not want to waste valuable court time and not hold BO accountable. The burden to each SoS to vet each candidate for each office would be prohibitive in both time and expense.
***Lucky for us, we have the constitution. It states that “if the president elect fails to qualify”... not “if the SoS fails to qualify the candidate” nor “if the people fail to qualify the PE”.

20th Amendment Sct3: “if the President elect shall have failed to qualify”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2145602/posts
12/09/2008 9:59:02 AM PST · by Kevmo · 79 replies · 1,825+ views
Constitution of the United States ^ | January 23, 1933 | US Constitution

[Kevmo]

The persons who would be the most likely to have “standing” in this legal situation would be the people who were most directly harmed by an allegedly ineligible candidate: John McCain and Sarah Palin.
***But another candidate, Keyes, has filed lawsuits. And the ‘standing’ issue is just a smokescreen anyways. Lower courts don’t want to get involved because it’s obvious this one will get kicked up to the SCOTUS regardless of how they find, and if they find against the most likely next president there will be a lot of political hell-to-pay. So they weasel out on the ‘standing’ issue and punt.

[blondee123]

Should I go out and by a bottle of Dom or a gun?

A gun!

[blondee123]

Philp Berg had previously been granted conference hearings, scheduled this Friday, 1/9 and on 1/16.

I'm lost, so did Berg get a hearing today (1/09)?

[TXnMA]

Both. You can never have too many guns...

[TheThinker]

This case will be denied 0-9 with no comment. You can count on it.

I don't understand why Roberts would bring this case to conference as a courtesy to the other justices. Why would it be a courtesy, to give them a chance to swear off this issue forever?

[TheThinker]

What would your father say about the wheels of justice turning too slowly?

[hoosiermama]

AR-BI-TRAR-Y adj arrived at without allowing argument or objection Webster

Go back to basic English and get a vocabulary.

[wintertime]

Good idea!

[jamese777]

The candidates who actually received electoral votes have more standing to show damages than candidates who received no electoral votes. McCain-Palin were the only other candidates to receive Electoral Votes, 173 electoral votes to be exact.
A case can only be “kicked up” to the Supreme Court if it has been ruled upon at a lower court level. The Supreme Court is an appeals court, the highest appeals court. Almost no cases originate at the Supreme Court except for disputes between state governments or between a state and the federal government.
The Supreme Court favors taking cases from the US Courts of Appeals. Phillip Berg made a tactical mistake by skipping the US Court of Appeals which is most likely why his case has been denied twice already at the US Supreme Court level. The Supremes like utilizing “the chain of command” and the US Court of Appeals is the next highest court to the Supreme Court.