Kerchner v Obama DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010 (re: Barry's eligibility)

www.supremecourt.gov ^ | 11/08/2010 | SCOTUS

[rxsid]

No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism.
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010

Attorney Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

[danamco]

And “duly” certified by Nazi Pelosi!!!

[danamco]

If you noticed, Nazi Pelosi jumped out of her seat and overpowered Dick Cheney with loud plus RAT applause, even before he had a chance to ask for an objection, if there ever was on!!!

[danamco]

If you noticed, Nazi Pelosi jumped out of her seat and overpowered Dick Cheney with loud plus RAT applause, even before he had a chance to ask for an objection, if there ever was one!!!

[danamco]

Something like this scenario???

http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php

[danamco]

I have posted the link here on FR a plethora of times since it surfaced. However, the transcript at WND really puts it in prospective!!!

[danamco]

Not one out of 535 members of Congress challenged the certification.

Because of the political hack Jack Maskell!!!

Have you read about him, or your Holder bosses "forgot" to tell you about him???

[danamco]

Sorry double postings!!!

[rxsid]

"Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST

Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner will be guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim 'Howie' Mandel - Tues 09 Nov 2010, 4:00 p.m. EST. Please stop by the show and listen in for the latest news about the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit and Petition filing at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Listen live at this link: http://www.latalkradio.com/
Learn more about the show at: http://www.howieunveilsgodsshield.com/"

From: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/atty-apuzzo-cdr-kerchner-on-howie.html

[butterdezillion]

I hadn’t realized that what Tex was saying was from two different years/transcripts, which was what confused me.

Having read both those transcripts now, those hearings were night-and-day different, I think mostly because of the presence of Rep Lee, who practically called SCOTUS racists who have made decisions to make sure nobody but white Harvard and Yale grads ever clerk for them. I think Serrano was trying to mitigate the fallout from that, and that’s where this exchange actually came in - trying to transition from Thomas saying the court does its best and just needs good people who are willing to hash things out fairly, to a place where SCOTUS was once again shown respect. He did that by saying that even though most people from Sotomayor’s culture had no clue what SCOTUS or Congress really do in their work, they honor the importance of what is done, so even though Thomas might feel the struggle is humbling it is also recognized as very important.

Seemed like he was synthesizing several different thought streams, but mostly Sotomayor’s “humble” origins and how they tied in with what Thomas had said about having to grapple through things being a humbling experience.

Serrano noted Thomas being OK with somebody becoming a SCOTUS justice who had never been a judge (which applied to Sotomayor) and Thomas added that a person doesn’t have to be born in the US either, to be a SCOTUS justice (which also applied to Sotomayor).

That’s when Serrano brought up that Thomas could say that about judges but wouldn’t ever say what about POTUS. And of course Thomas’ statement that they were evading that issue but that they were definitely letting him know he could be a SCOTUS justice anyway.

Interesting discussion as to why SCOTUS doesn’t accept as many cases as they used to; Thomas would like them to hear more and has an undisclosed theory as to why the number has declined. The other judge implied it was because they didn’t have decisions they needed to overturn, but that argument seems bad to me because it implies that SCOTUS would only take up cases they had already decided they were going to overturn.

Also interesting discussion on how the justices hash it out amongst themselves how they will or won’t come up with the votes to grant certiorari or a stay of execution. That discussion seemed supportive of the scenario you presented, Red Steel - where they knew where each other stood and factored it into their own vote on whether to hear a case.

That exchange was out of character for the rest of the hearing, which was also definitely more uncomfortable than the 2008 hearing. I’m sure part of that was dealing with the accusations thrown out there by Rep Lee. I think the Obama presidency has done more to hurt race relations than anything in modern history. But that’s another issue.

In the end, what we know is that Thomas said they are evading the issue of whether someone has to be born in the USA to be eligible as POTUS, even as they welcome someone born in Puerto Rico as SCOTUS justice.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Petitioners submit their petitions to a single justice who then presents that petition to the other justices in a “cert conference.” If four justices believe that the full court should hear an appeal, then “Cert” is granted and the appeal is docketed for the full court. If “Cert” is denied on the petition submitted to one justice, plaintiffs will often resubmit the petition to another justice. The only “non-constitutionalist” justices to receive petitions for Writs of Certiorari in Obama eligibility appeals are former Justice David Souter and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. All the other petitions went to Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas.

No-- all cert. petitions are filed with the Clerk, not with a single justice, and all go to the full Court and all are listed for a conference.

What you are thinking of is the procedure for a request for a stay or other temporary relief pending the Supreme Court's consideration of the cert. petition: those requests go to one Justice; that Justice can either grant it, deny it or send it to the full Court. If that Justice denies it, the petitioner can submit it to another justice (who will then usually submit it to the full court).

In some of the earlier eligibility cases, there were requests for stays (Dinofrio asked for a stay of the inauguration, Taitz asked for a stay of her sanctions, there were a few others). All were denied (or referred to the full court which denied them).

[patlin]

thx for the heads up

[hoosiermama]

Remember there are two meaning of the word evade (the second found in older disctionaries:

Evade:...to be too difficult, puzzling or baffling for, the flavor evades difinition.

from the New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language Encyclopedic Edition

[null and void]

Is Puerto Rico a US territory?
Were both of Serrano’s parents US citizens at the time of his birth?

What’s so hard about that?

[Tex-Con-Man]

Supreme Conflict is a very interesting behind the scenes look at the Supreme Court. From the end of the Rehnquist court to the beginning of the Roberts court.

It reveals the strong conservative influence Thomas has had on the philosophical leanings of the court.

This is a snarky review from the left, but it does give you a good idea of what the book is about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/books/23kaku.html

The book explains how the cases are argued amongst the justices. Rehnquist wanted everything in writing.

After reading the book, my impression of Sandra Day O'Connor was she sided with whoever wasn't mean to her. She never belonged on the court.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Thanks for the info!

[Tex-Con-Man]

Is Puerto Rico a US territory?
Were both of Serrano’s parents US citizens at the time of his birth?

What’s so hard about that?

You'll have to take those questions up with Serrano and the Justices. They are the ones bantering the subject back and forth.

My interest was in clarifying the misimpression that the encounter between Thomas and Serrano was about Obama eligibility. It wasn't.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Is Puerto Rico a US territory?

Technically, a U.S. "commonwealth."

Were both of Serrano’s parents US citizens at the time of his birth? What’s so hard about that?

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens from birth, but they were granted citizenship by statute, not by direct Constitutional grant of citizenship under the 14th Amendment. That is why there is an unresolved question as to whether someone born in Puerto Rico is eligible for the Presidency. Serrano asks Thomas that question every year, and that is why Thomas jokes about "evading" the question.

[rxsid]

Prior to that exchange, was there a question(s) before the court regarding Puerto Ricans and weather or not they are eligible to be POTUS?

[Lurking Libertarian]

The issue has nver gotten to the Court; no Puerto Rican has ever run for President. But, if you check the links up above on this thread, Serrano asks Thomas about this every year and it has become a running joke between the two of them.

[null and void]

Not as far as I know, if there was the current situation would have more clarity.