Posted on 11/20/2008 8:28:49 AM PST by Candor7
On December 5, 2008, only ten days before the electoral college votes, the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will meet in private to review Obama's citizenship status.
Leo Donofrio's case, "Leo C. Donofrio, v. Nina Mitchell Wells, Secretary of State of the State of New Jersey, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 08A407," regarding Obama's citizenship has reached a new level. The case has been "distributed for conference."
This docketing today by the court should send ripples of fear through the Obama camp. Obama has been proceeding at lightening speed to put together a cabinet and take possession of the White House with the hope that he won't have to answer the question of whether or not he was "at birth" a "natural born citizen."
Every major news network, print and cable news like FOX, CNN and MSNBC, have ignored all the court cases challenging Obama's eligibility as sore losers or conspiracy theories. It might be in their best interest at this point to report this critically important meeting to take place on December 5, 2008, or lose what little credibility they have left.
If four of the nine Justices vote to hear the case in full review, oral argument may be ordered. The conference is scheduled for December 5, 2008, ten days before the meeting of the Electoral College…
The case originally sought, pre-election, to have the names of Barack Obama, John McCain, and Roger Calero removed from New Jersey ballots, and for a stay of the "national election" pending Supreme Court review of whether those candidates were eligible under the Constitution as natural born Citizens, as is required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States.
Leo Donofrio brought his case from a lower New Jersey court to the NJ Supreme Court -- was denied -- and then he filed an emergency stay application in the United States Supreme Court on Nov. 3, 2008, before the Honorable Associate Justice David Souter. Justice Souter denied the emergency stay application on Nov. 6.
Leo Donofrio renewed the application, as per Supreme Court Rule 22.4, to the Honorable Associate Justice Clarence Thomas by way of Express mail on Nov. 14. The application arrived at the Supreme Court on Nov. 17 and was submitted directly to Justice Thomas.
On Nov. 19, the case was docketed for full conference of all nine Justices and scheduled for December 5, 2008. It is not known at this time the exact details of how the case came to be "DISTRIBUTED for Conference".
Background on "The Justices Conference" is discussed as follows by the Supreme Court Historical Society:
"No outsider enters the room during conference. The junior Associate Justice acts as "doorkeeper," sending for reference material, for instance, and receiving it at the door...
Five minutes before conference time, 9:30 or 10 a.m., the Justices are summoned. They exchange ritual handshakes and settle down at the long table. The Chief sits at the east end; the other Justices sit at places they have chosen in order of their seniority…
The Chief Justice opens the discussion, summarizing each case. The senior Associate Justice speaks next, and comment passes down the line. To be accepted for review, a case needs only four votes, fewer than the majority required for a decision on the case itself. Counsel for the litigants are directed to submit their printed briefs so that each Justice has a set several weeks before argument.
Well , many minds on FR have been exploring what you raise here.
Many believe that either Frank Davis Jr, or possibly Malcolm X was Obama's biological father.
Anne Dunham was a wild young thing.
It's either that, or the stock market going down to 10% of what it is NOW, based on investors' natural fears of the Obamanation and the socialist supermajority. We can handle riots better than a total economic collapse.
Your premise is nonexistent.
We'll see.
“the damage from an 0bama presidency will indeed be worse than the short term damage done by the rioters.”
Yes, very much so.
Don’t you know what your own premise is? I’m referring to your premise, not your assertion to which I was replying.
Thanks, Candor7.
The race is decided by the House. That part's not so mysterious; it's happened before.
That would be the scenario if Obama is disqualified.
If 270 of Obama's 352 electors vote for the same candidate, there's a winner. There would be a lot of jockeying between supporters of Biden and HRC, but I suspect they'd work out a backroom deal (for example, Biden names HRC veep) before voting rather than risk a contested ballot. I really don't see enough electors throwing the election to McCain.
I don’t believe McCain would be considered. It would have to be a Dem. I believe that Obama’s electors would be disqualified as they are assigned to Obama. It says the House would pick the President. I’d bet on it being Hillary and Biden as VP. Unless Biden is disqualified because Obama picked him.
That's nowhere in the law. A Dem getting elected would be overwhelmingly likely, but there's nothing in the law that requires it.
I believe that Obama’s electors would be disqualified as they are assigned to Obama. It says the House would pick the President. I’d bet on it being Hillary and Biden as VP. Unless Biden is disqualified because Obama picked him.
I don't know where you're getting these disqualifications. The electors are chosen by the states; unless there's something in state law that I don't know about, disqualifying Obama would have no effect on who is in the EC. Obama's electors would be free to vote for anyone they like, and it wouldn't go to the House unless they were unable to settle on a candidate.
I will respect the result from the process, I really need to get on with my life.
Forgive me should I echo others’ sentiments, but what a wonderful thread title.
Bill Clinton Hurls Constitution Qualifications Bomb at Obama
August 08, 2008
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&articleId=281474977417055
As they say here in the South... "watch that Bill Clinton... he is a slick-'un"! How best was this phrase demonstrated than during his recent interview on ABC news... where his comments continue to generate incessant rumors at the grass root level, regarding Senator Obama's constitutional qualifications for the office of President. Clinton, the masterful dean and inventor of message innuendo said, when asked by ABC correspondent Snow about Obama being completely qualified to be President:
"The Constitution sets qualifications for the president, and then the people decide who they think would be the better president".
Why didn't #42 just state a resounding "Yes, he is" ... or a conclusive "No, he's not", when asked that question? Surely Bill Clinton understands that this statement would further fuel the constant, nagging drag on Obama––and subsequent tanking poll numbers of Obama––because of the junior Senator from Illinois' refusal to produce his original, signed, certified birth certificate. Was President Clinton signaling a hidden meaning in his "... Constitution sets qualifications for the president..." remark that he has alsobought into the wide-spread notion that Obama is hiding something by not being transparent and revealing his birth records?
Thank Freeper Beckwith!
JSR's are worthless, they have no effect as law.
The ABOVE is WRONG. MEA CULPA!
Correction, although the subject jpeg was discovered to be a fraud, by Polarik, it was never ADMITTED to be a fraud by those who had composed it.
My mistake.
The subject COLB is still referred to by Obama supporters as virtuous, when in fact it is a proven forgery.
( I hope that helps fix this!)
My apologies!
It won’t be long before the NY Slimes and the Boston Glob go bankrupt.
Will someone step up to buy the Boston Globe?
Boston Herald ^ | Thursday, November 20, 2008 | Christine McConville
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2135608/posts
No. There's no precedent for this sort of thing, but the most likely scenario is that the electors would become free agents. Electors tend to be committed partisans; that's why they were picked for the gig in the first place.
This is where I just don't get it. Why should the electors won by a fraudulent candidate stand? It seems this could be abused in a big way.
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.