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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Kevmo - read the document that I referenced in my posts. It provides a great deal of insight into the strategy that justices uses to select cases for conference. It will shine a whole new light on your theory. (In a good way.)

[BuckeyeTexan]

The clerk will distribute (refer, hand, submit) the petition to the Court. That doesn't mean the clerk has the authority to distribute a case for conference by the full Court. Only justices may send a case to conference and even that is done according to seniority. The justice who sends the case to conference is the justice who leads the discussion at conference.

[Kevmo]

It will shine a whole new light on your theory. (In a good way.)
***Do you agree with my odds analysis? Maybe N is lower than 0.3?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Has a petition for writ of certiorari been filed for each case?

I followed Donofrio’s case. He declined to file an actual petition and instead expected the court to convert his request for an emergency stay into a writ. (As they did in Bush/Gore.)

I’m far from a mathematician, but your numbers seem logical.

[BuckeyeTexan]

P.S. That document has data about the percentage of cases selected for conference. They analyzed 9 terms from 1985 - 1993.

[MilspecRob]

Thank you both for an informative and adult portion of this rather bizarre and often nasty thread

[BuckeyeTexan]

You’re welcome. Thanks for the acknowledgement. I think we’re trying to keep it civil while disagreeing on the substantive issues.

[BP2]

In speaking with various folks today, including Joyce, it was rather curious that the SCOTUS allowed to include the amicus with less than 10 days consideration, and that the other side did NOT object. At least five Justices “approved” to give it the “GRANTED” stamp — and that's significant.

As I and others have noted, the Anderson amicus brief was well written and caused the Justices some pause. The repercussions are serious if they wrongly deny cases as they have, and Obama is later found out to be illegitimate.

Don't think that simply because they don't accept Berg's petition they won't accept subsequent petitions or emergency stays by him or others. The Justices may not mark everything in their considerations when they consider what comes their way...

In Walker v. United States, an over-length (IMO, bloated and poorly written) brief citing over two hundred Supreme Court rulings favoring the position of the plaintiff, Bill Walker of Seattle, Washington, was presented in district court. The court refused to read the document and ultimately, citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) established that under the court’s political question doctrine, Congress was empowered to ignore or veto the direct text of the Constitution.

Following the court decision, an amicus brief was filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases, McConnell v Federal Election Commission (02-1674 et al.). The purpose of the brief was twofold: (1) To serve as a practice exercise for a new Walker case intended to go to the Supreme Court and (2) to find out whether or not the assertions made in Walker v. United States were in fact true……The fact the amicus was never presented to the Court did not matter. Because the attorneys had reacted so violently, it was obvious by this reaction that what had been stated, that Congress possessed a veto and the effect of that veto was far-reaching, so much so, as to establish the possibility of a dictatorship in the government, that no attorney could accept it.

One document can sometimes have a very powerful, unforeseen effect...

[Lurking Libertarian]

Thank you both.

[MHGinTN]

Very interesting! And thank you for the ping.

[LucyT]

Thank you, BP2.

Ping. There’s no rest for the weary. Who would have thought there’d be anything to ping today.

[Frantzie]

I think Steve Pidgeon (attny from WA) will be on Plains Radio in about a half hour or 7 pm EST.

[Eye of Unk]

I have on the thread about the US Airways ditching, I was away from my puter awhile, trying to get caught up now.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I posted a thread about this very subject last night - the Walker cases.

Congress can veto Constitutional clauses (What?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2164746/posts

I sent a ping to hoosiermama and asked her to ask her dad about it. I’m curious what he has to say.

[IrishPennant]

Thanks for the

[Red Steel]

Bush has declared a "state of emergency" in DC.

Inauguration declared 'emergency' ("A State of Emergency")

[LucyT]

Heh. Thanks, IrishPennant. I’ve thought of using a similar photo for pings, but wasn’t sure it would be appreciated by everyone.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Bump Dat...

[seekthetruth]

Thanks for the ping. Steve Pigeon is to be on Plains in a few minutes. At 7 Eastern on Plains with Chalice.