Posted on 01/22/2009 7:01:08 AM PST by dascallie
How is this possible? Orly Taitz has a scheduled conference hearing for Jan23, by Justice Roberts...it has disappeared from the docket.
posted by Shestheone
IP: 72.224.141.133
Jan 22nd, 2009 - 7:38 AM Re: America's finest ! Dr Orly Taitz- Just sent lots of subpeona 's out _ I hope she sees my future
Ah, but her cases are no longer on the docket - bo has struck. All elgibility cases have disappeared. Please call and write to our Supreme Court and demand that they put the elgibility cases back on the docket. Visit scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com too and leave feedback.
Dream on.
No you dream on but keep those cute cartoons coming. Do you have an O screen saver?
I see you have no clue about Anderson.
FR’s home page refers to FR as a forum in several places. IMO, that conclusively categorizes FR as a forum, not a blog.
You could write JR and ask him. Maybe he agrees with you. Or not.
Would it also be the case if, say, a President was caught, live on TV, committing murder?
Anderson filed an amicus curiae brief, asking the Supreme Court to hear Berg's case. The Supreme Court granted him permission to file his brief (an amicus, not being a party to the case, needs the Court's permission to file a brief). Once Anderson'rs brief was filed, the Court refused to hear Berg's case. So Anderson's brief had, and has, no legal effect.
Constitutionally he can only be removed from office by impeachment. Everyone here is screaming about how he is constitutionally ineligible to be president while at the same time proposing unconstitutional ways to try to remove him from office. If you want to follow the Constitution, then you have to impeach him to remove him from office.
He's the President now.
Deal with it.
Please explain.
I thought that the Anderson amicus was connected with the Berg case which was shunted back to a lower court, not denied outright. Am I right or wrong?
"None made it to the Supreme Court. They were all denied."
"Not true but thanks for playing. SCOTUS is probably thinking very hard about the Anderson amicus brief interpleader which they affirmed. There is a good reason too."
No, it's completely true. Each case has been denied. They aren't even looking at the brief. Anderson requested permission to file one and they allowed it as a matter of procedure. But they won't even read it because they don't have a case before them. It was denied.
It’s back up now.
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm
Wow, I lost sleep last night. The press secretary has just been grilled about Zero taking the oath twice.
Get the usurper!
Berg sued in federal district court. That court dismissed his case for lack of standing. He then filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit. Before that court ruled (or even got briefs), Berg asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case up from the 3d Circuit, and also asked them to stop the inauguration. The Supreme Court denied both those requests. The result is that the case is still pending in the 3d Circuit, although it is not quite accurate to say that the Supreme Court sent it back to that court; the Supreme Court denied the only requests that were made to it. (The Supreme Court did grant Anderson's request to file an amicus brief in the Berg Supreme Court case, but now that the case is no longer in the Supreme Court that brief is of no effect. Anderson will have to ask the 3d Circuit for permission to file a brief in that court if he wants to.)
Not true. Berg’s cases are still alive. One was sent down to the district court. Berg has a second case in the DC court.
Cort Wrotnowski and Orly’s cases are alive at SCOTUS and two new ones will be heading to SCOTUS pretty soon. It is very interesting that Cort’s case is still there.
It's interesting that there have been such a large number of cases regarding this one issue. Are we close to a record?
I don't think you have been paying attention to what recently transpired in the White House.
Through "an abundance of caution", the White House counsel advised and Obama agreed to have the oath of office administered a second time.
Now, why was that? I'll tell you why. Because any actions of Obama prior to taking the oath could be successfully challenged as being of no legal effect because Obama had not fulfilled the Constitutional requirements in order to exercise the powers of the Presidency.
This issue differs in no significant way whatever from the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen. If Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then any act he carries out in the White House can be successfully challenged. His signature on Congressional legislation would carry no more weight than yours or mine.
A reporter asked the White House spokesman whether Obama would be re-signing the executive orders that he signed prior to the second oath-taking. Though the spokesman seemed to be suggesting that it wasn't necessary, I predict that those orders will be re-signed before the week is out.
The statement was about the Supreme Court, not lower courts.
"Cort Wrotnowski and Orly’s cases are alive at SCOTUS and two new ones will be heading to SCOTUS pretty soon. It is very interesting that Cort’s case is still there."
They are "alive" only in the sense they haven't been denied yet. They have not been accepted either.
So he could properly take the oath. It has nothing to do with the birth certicate claims. Nobody in authority is taking any of this seriously. Not the court, and not Obama.
There is a reason they were not denied. You figure it out.
You’re too gracious.
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.