High court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader

Associated Press ^ | January 10, 2011 | Associated Press

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the challenge to President Barack Obama's citizenship.

The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

[DoughtyOne]

To you and I the additional points raised by Taitz in this filing make sense. To the court I’m sure it looks like an end run intent on bringing the legal issues concerning Obama’s legitimacy to the court on the fast track. It seems they bristled and rejected that attempt.

I think there are compelling issues here. What is more important than having a legitimate head of our national government? Is it of prime importance to validate all actions of a sitting president, or is it more important to recognize him despite his not being vetted?

I cannot fathom the mindset that reasons this not one of the most important matters in our nation at this moment. And yet, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the court on letter of the law grounds. But if I do defend the court here, then what other recourse is there? Where do those of my stripe get our day in court? How can we stop a rogue president once he is seated?

If this cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, who will advance this issue? It’s as if this issue were caught in-between different dimensions, and couldn’t be recognized by either.

The inability of citizens to get this matter addressed appropriately and fully, will destroy respect for our government. It has in large part shaken mine considerably. It is entirely possible an illegal alien is sitting in the White House. He may not have been a natural born child. He may also have renounced his U. S. Citizenship to attend school in Asia. Does this matter? Do we care? Is our Constitution absolutely worthless to us? What protects us if it is invalid? And if this matter can’t be addressed, then it has been invalidated.

If we have come to the place in our nation that a man can fraudulently become president, and nobody will stand up to him, then our nation is more of a pipe dream than a reality, the rule of law is dead to us, and a slow boil anarchy is upon us at this time.

Nevermind SCOTUS, this isn’t important. Sorry to bother you. Just go back to sleep. I’ll defend you on the merits as our nation sinks into the primordial muck.

Que the Wicked Witch of the West’s honor guard music here...

Oh eee oh, oh oh...

Now we know where the flying monkey’s roost, and it isn’t on John and Jane America’s keyboards you numskulls.

It’s in our courts and our most honored halls of governance.

Why should we respect you? You flick your buggers on us.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Orly Taitz was never on the birthers’ side. She’s a lunatic attention whore. She couldn’t properly file a legal brief if Chief Justice John Roberts dictated it to her word for word. Her freak show kept the public’s attention on her antics. She bears significant responsibility for destroying the credibility of the eligibility issue.

[trumandogz]

“Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years...”

Are You Serious?

[El Sordo]

Shocka!!

[trumandogz]

“Absolutely pathetic. This is the most offensive action of the Supreme Court in all my nearly 60 years...”

Are You Serious?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. I appreciate the clarification. I remembered that she had done some things that made me think she was a kook, but couldn’t remember the particulars.

You may think the judge is treasonous (and hell, they may be), but it’s not going to get your case reconsidered on the merits, to tell him/her they are. Telling them they are will only destroy your own credibility. And sadly, Taitz did that here.

Then making false charges on top of it? Dumb dumb dumb...

Chalk one up for Obama due to her actions alone.

Those who disagree with me on that point, please think how much better it would have been if she were appealing the dismissal of the judge on it’s merits, rather than the $20k fine on it’s merits.

[Fantasywriter]

Well said indeed. Your post sums it all up the a patriotic conservative sees it. Like you, I don’t understand the mindset of those who deflect, minimize or otherwise attempt to derail this issue. We citizens DO have a right to know who is occupying the Oval Office. We have every right to see his records. For instance, I have read that he applied to Occidental as a foreign national. Why is there even a question about it? Why doesn’t he release that info, and let us see it for ourselves?

His contempt for the people who pay his salary and finance his lavish lifestyle goes beyond anything I have ever seen, save in a tinpot dictator. Fortunately I believe the truth will come out. We just have to keep pushing for it every way we can, and in the end we will succeed.

[B4Ranch]

The first to fail when a democracy collapses will be the Court of Law.

[jamese777]

To you and I the additional points raised by Taitz in this filing make sense. To the court I’m sure it looks like an end run intent on bringing the legal issues concerning Obama’s legitimacy to the court on the fast track. It seems they bristled and rejected that attempt.

I think there are compelling issues here. What is more important than having a legitimate head of our national government? Is it of prime importance to validate all actions of a sitting president, or is it more important to recognize him despite his not being vetted?

I cannot fathom the mindset that reasons this not one of the most important matters in our nation at this moment. And yet, I find myself somewhat sympathetic to the court on letter of the law grounds. But if I do defend the court here, then what other recourse is there? Where do those of my stripe get our day in court? How can we stop a rogue president once he is seated?

If this cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, who will advance this issue? It’s as if this issue were caught in-between different dimensions, and couldn’t be recognized by either.

The inability of citizens to get this matter addressed appropriately and fully, will destroy respect for our government. It has in large part shaken mine considerably. It is entirely possible an illegal alien is sitting in the White House. He may not have been a natural born child. He may also have renounced his U. S. Citizenship to attend school in Asia. Does this matter? Do we care? Is our Constitution absolutely worthless to us? What protects us if it is invalid? And if this matter can’t be addressed, then it has been invalidated.

If we have come to the place in our nation that a man can fraudulently become president, and nobody will stand up to him, then our nation is more of a pipe dream than a reality, the rule of law is dead to us, and a slow boil anarchy is upon us at this time.

Nevermind SCOTUS, this isn’t important. Sorry to bother you. Just go back to sleep. I’ll defend you on the merits as our nation sinks into the primordial muck.

Que the Wicked Witch of the West’s honor guard music here...

Oh eee oh, oh oh...

Now we know where the flying monkey’s roost, and it isn’t on John and Jane America’s keyboards you numskulls.

It’s in our courts and our most honored halls of governance.

Why should we respect you? You flick your buggers on us.

---

In my humble opinion, one US District Court Judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it very succinctly and entirely correctly: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama”

---

If issues of Obama’s eligibility are important, any prosectuing attorney in this nation can convene a Grand Jury investigation and subpoena documents and witnesses.
Additionally, Congress can convene its own investigation into the matter and issue subpoenas and compel testimony as well.
To date, no grand jury investigation has occurred in any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot and there hasn’t even been a call for a congressional investigation.

[Fantasywriter]

Ted Kennedy began the serious destruction of the courts by turning Judicial hearings into anti-conservative slime-and-smear/hate fests. I wish no one evil—no one—but I would hate to have that as my legacy. [Part of the legacy, anyway; wholesale illegal immigration, rampant abortion—including partial birth—and plenty more destructive stuff to round it off.]

[yldstrk]

I totally agree

[yldstrk]

stfu she is very courageous, you are an ass

[saltus]

“Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama” “

Excellent point. This is a fine example of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. The Constitution gives Congress this authority, and courts are wisely deferring to the legislative branch.

[woofie]

Somehow telling anyone on this board to STFU seems to me the antithesis of what FR is all about. If you like Orly so be it .....but I think you run the risk of having your dentures subpoenaed

[woofie]

I should have included you in my comment #34

[Mr. Lucky]

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

[DoughtyOne]

In my humble opinion, one US District Court Judge who ruled on an Obama eligibility lawsuit put it very succinctly and entirely correctly: “There very well may be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential CANDIDATE who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for removal of a president, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

Having said what I already have, it may surprise you that I agree with you here.  I recognize what the Constitutional merits are here.  Still, there are grave shortcomings to those Constitutional merits aren't there. And this case is a case that reaveals the extreme nature of those shortcomings.  On the one hand you have the real possiblity of having an illigitimate president.  On the other you have the granting of power only to Congress, and it won't get off it's ass to do anything about this.

Here are two issues covered by the U. S. Constitution.

1. The president must be natural born.
2. Only Congress can remove

Congress couldn't care less that issue one above may be in a failed state.

The Courts honor issue two religiously.

So we have one branch of government that may be fraudulent.  We have another sticking to it's guns on the matter of Issue 2, and another AWOL on both.

Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president.

Let's not forget that we presently have two branches of our government that very well could be in violation of Issue 1 listed above.  Namely, the President remains in power even though he may be aware he is not qualified.  Secondly, Congress has taken a pass on honoring their Constiututional duty, have made a granting of permission to break Issue 1 through default, and a failing to make sure the president does serve in accordance with the U. S. Constitution.

The process for removal of a sitting president-REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON-is within the province of Congress, not the Courts.” U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter, October 29, 2009, “Barnett v Obama”

However, this matter has not been taken up by Congress in the two years since Obama was sworn in.   What recourse is there for citizens?  Neither party will touch it.  So the possibility of us not having a legitimate head of state goes un-addressed.

If issues of Obama’s eligibility are important, any prosectuing attorney in this nation can convene a Grand Jury investigation and subpoena documents and witnesses. Additionally, Congress can convene its own investigation into the matter and issue subpoenas and compel testimony as well. To date, no grand jury investigation has occurred in any jurisdiction where Obama’s name was on the ballot and there hasn’t even been a call for a congressional investigation.

Yep, you've laid it out very clearly.  And about all you have proven, is that two years on, we may very well have a rogue president and there isn't anything any citizen can do to get this addressed.

I recognize that we do not want every Tom, Dick, and Harriet suing the President of the United States for whatever reason they come up with, but on a matter of Constitutionality, namely, "Who is in control of our nuclear football, and is he a treasonous bastard or not?" this should be a question even one citizen could force an answer on.

If it's a Constitutional matter, I should be able to file a grievance with my Representative that would cause an immediate review on Capital Hill.  And if I am not satisfied with the evidence that is presented to me at the end of quick review, I should be able to force a more in depth review.  All Constitutional grounds merits or requirements would HAVE TO BE MET.

Allowing a stonewalling of this for over two years makes this a banana republic.  And right now, we have a president that is governing like a banana republic's head of state.

[El Sordo]

What good has Orly Taitz done on this issue?

[edge919]

The Constitution only gives Congress the right to remove the president over high crimes and misdemeanors. Ineligibility for office wouldn’t fall under these categories unless Obama committed a crime in the process of declaring his eligibility. The judiciary still has the power to address questions arising under the Constitution. Addressing Obama’s eligibility does inherently mean removing him from office. Judge Carter made an excuse ... a poor excuse for not addressing the questions before his court.

[tired_old_conservative]

I think you're missing the point of a representative government.

You absolutely have a right to petition your representative about whatever you want. Your representative, however, does not take orders from you and is not obligated to act on your petition. Representatives routinely ignore all kinds of stuff from their constituents, sometimes for good reason.

What you are struggling with is a common problem constituents have. Your representative does not share your concern on this issue. That may seem annoying and unfair, but it is a legitimate outcome in our system of governance. You are free to vote against that representative in the next election, or even run against them yourself if you so desire.

At some point, if hundreds of representatives, including those seated after the 2010 elections, indicate to multiple constituents they do not share this concern, one should perhaps reexamine the factual details of one’s own premise. Alternatively, one can petition one’s state legislature to put in place laws requiring eligibility verification for 2012.