Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case

World Net Daily ^ | March 10, 2009 | Bob Unruh

[AJMCQ]

A lawyer lobbying the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Supreme Court for a review of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president says a key conservative justice has hinted that another conservative justice has been voting against hearing the dispute.

According to Orly Taitz, a California attorney working through her Defend Our Freedoms Foundation on several cases challenging Obama, said she was presented with an opportunity to ask a question of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday.

The issue of Obama's eligibility has been raised before the Supreme Court at least four times already but has yet to be given a single hearing. Cases have been brought by Taitz, Philip Berg, Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio.

[RED SOUTH]

It’s Thomas. Just like Powell , color before country.

[mquinn]

Fascinating. Maybe they’ll make a move about that someday.

Oh. Wait... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/

[mountainbunny]

Can Scalia demand to have the Birth Cert unsealed for just him to look at?

It would seem that if the Supreme Court wanted to see a document as part of an active case that they'd agreed to hear, they could (possibly, at least) subpoena that document.

Honestly, I’d drop the whole matter if Scalia & Co looked at it in private and stated that Bammy was eligible under the Constitution.

I am unaware of anything in the US Constitution or in any body of law that gives the Supreme Court the right to act as an investigative body in the absence of an active case. If anyone is aware of such a law, I'd like to see it.

[real_patriotic_american]

...... that would require the evidence to be presented in court. Yes, I probably would accept that if they reviewed the original vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate. I don’t believe they would approve Obama’s Presidency if the document proves he was NOT born a natural born American citizen. I firmly do not believe that he was.

What is Obama hiding?

[gunnyg]

Agreed!

I don’t understand why I’ve read numerous comments (all over, not just fr—pointing the finger at Justice Thomas???)

IF anything—I could understand some finger pointing in the general direction of roberts!

After all, he is the one w/his invite to visit the sc a week or so prior to swearing in (the first swearing in) and with a case then currently pending in his court—then...participated (again) in the second unrecorded swearing in after inauguration.....makes one wonder doesn’t it???