BO with Tom Curley, Pres and CEO of AP.
Posted on 12/17/2008 9:33:30 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON, (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has rejected two more efforts to get the court to consider whether President-elect Barack Obama is eligible to take office.
Kennedy on Wednesday denied without comment an appeal by Philip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania attorney, that claims Obama is either a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia and is ineligible to be president . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Yeah....I'll tell 'em startraveler sent me and LOL
ONE MORE TIME!
This is NOT about politics!
Don't get discouraged with some of the comments. We both know how it works around here. Every time there is something that looks bad for some democrat and there is comment on it, out come the "this will never be published by the media", "nothing will come of it because it is a Democrat" gang in an attempt to disparage any hope one might have.
Even worse, is the "we shouldn't push this issue to far or it might make conservative look bad" group. Do they think we are loved now?
Being the good guys is why the Republican party is in the shape if is now. We need to go after the Dims tooth and nail for the next 4 to 6 years. Don't listen to the negative "there is no hope" group. Have faith that there will come a time when the Dims won't always get their way.
“Where is Ross the hoss when the nation needs him?”
Still pissed off that the nation didn’t trust or want him enough to listen to him way back when, no doubt.
The case is a dog. It has no merit.
***2 Supreme Court justices referred 2 cases to their colleagues due to the merit. Again you’re wrong.
No one will take it. End of story.
***That is one of the saddest FReeper commentaries I’ve ever seen, likening the loss of our constitutional republic to the losing side of a football game. You just don’t get it, and that is sad. Historians will record 12/15/08 as the first day of the American Empire and the last day of the American Constitutional Republic. While the republic burns, you’re fiddling and deriding fellow freepers with pisspoor invalid reasoning, classic fallacies, and analogies that prove you have no heart for this republic. I grieve for my country due to FReepers like you.
what is happening with the BERG case and all the other cases been suspicously quiet these days.
Lack of Obammy's willingness to show his birth certificate should qualify as a "hint of a possibility," wouldn't you think? Or is he too regal to be bothered with such a technicality.
You folks who are willing to give him a pass on this are making a pretty messy bed -- one that is only fit for whores to sleep in.
I hope you are right that only the stays were denied. It is extremely troubling that Barack Obama won the election after sealing most, if not all, of his records. Who would vote for such a person?
Unfortunately, the media bias is so extreme that this secrecy raised no red flags for the MSM. This is in stark contrast to the absolute hysteria over a small portion of Bush’s National Guard records. Imagine if Bush had hired lawyers to block attempts to get him to release a simple birth certificate! It is beyond strange that Obama will post that document on web sites but will not present it to the courts. (Maybe he figures that the courts would demand the original long form certificate.)
Notice to the Supreme Court: Stop playing cards in your chambers and protect our constitutional requirements for the presidency! LOL!
It isn’t lost on me that you are not responding to the quote you claim I made either.
Like everything else on this thread, you’ve got your facts wrong again and run to the shadows to not admit it.
Nonsense. Congress would have to act against Obama. The Dems in Congress would be in peril if they did nothing. They'd get swept out of office. What I know of the Dims is that they are cowards first, and would throw Obama under the bus if and when he is found in violation of the U.S. Constitution by not being a natural born citizen.
You said — “I see it differently. The cases that have thus far came before the SCOTUS in conference have to do with putting the responsibility for vetting the candidates in the lap of the individual SoS of each state. IMO this is unreasonable as each Sos would have to verify each candidate for each office. The task would be next to impossible.
OTOH if the burden is put upon the candidate/party to prove their eligibility, than the Berg/Keyes cases seem to have more merit.”
—
If the Supreme Court is gong to respect “states rights” and their right to control their own electors to the Electoral College — then the Supreme Court should decided to *stay out of the states business* of running their elections.
It’s a states rights issue and the states have to determine (each one for themselves) how they are going to vet candidates and how they are going to send the electors’ votes to the Electoral College...
In this sense and if the Supreme Court was to be *conservative* then the Supreme Court should have *nothing to do* with this issue (pertaining to the state’s Secretary of State and how they vet candidates).
Wow, GMTA. I was pondering the legalities and feasibility of building an indoor range in the back yard earlier this morning....you know, just letting the mind wonder....
“Court just said there is no ground to think he is not a citizen”
Which court?
Do you have a link for that?
Thanks in advance!
You said — “Nonsense. Congress would have to act against Obama. The Dems in Congress would be in peril if they did nothing. They’d get swept out of office.”
I see nothing that would require them to act against Obama. There’s nothing to show that there is a violation of the Constitution. When the cases are “moot” because he is President, the Supreme Court will dismiss them, being that it’s an issue for Congress. The Supreme Court cannot remove a President, only Congress can.
Congress won’t remove this President any more than now, because no one has come up with anything to show that Obama is *not* qualified. With “nothing to show” there will be no impeachment...
I haven’t seen anyone working to correct the process. I’ve only seen people trying to get rid of Obama, when they *can not say* that he’s disqualified....
***I say it. Obama is disqualified. Others have filed court cases saying the same thing. Those courts punted due to lack of standing. Did you know that as a voter you have no standing in the process? And yet, here you are deriding those who fight against such evil.
Now..., on the other hand, if I saw that people were working with their own states and talking to the legislators about enacting a state law to the effect of vetting candidates, then I would say that they are working to correct the process. I’ve seen none of that here, on Free Republic...
***I have. And the process is theoretically still in place for vetting the candidate. The 20th amendment says, “if the president elect shall have failed to qualify”, so that means it happens AFTER the general public votes, AFTER the Electoral College, it happens RIGHT NOW. We are correcting the process, we are engaging, we are addressing our grievances properly to the guvmint as the constitution says to do. One of the best examples is our own FReeper, Polarik, who has filed affidavits in Berg vs. Obama and generated a 160 page analysis showing that Obama’s BC electronic versions shown on FightTheSmears and Annenberg are forgeries. The reason why you don’t see it is you don’t want to see it, you’ve allowed the MSM to define what you think is the right course of action and you’ve stuck your wet finger to the wind to see which way popular opinion is blowing. We’re right at that point in the 20th amendment in the constitution and we’ve got REMF jerks like you shooting at us for not having our bootlaces tied correctly.
You said — “It isn’t lost on me that you are not responding to the quote you claim I made either.”
Refer me to the number of the post. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to...
what is happening with the BERG case and all the other cases been suspicously quiet these days.
You said — “This is NOT about politics!”
It is precisely so, because the “Constitution” is in “politics”. It defines our politics. The Supreme Court is in politics, because it’s in our political system. Electing a President because the majority of voters believe that he is qualified *is* politics, because voting for President is precisely that.
All the institutions and people and references made to this issue are *all political* — every last single one of them.
I don’t see how it’s not about politics. That’s our “system of government”...
BO with Tom Curley, Pres and CEO of AP.
Lightfoot v. Bowen: Denied by Justice Kennedy, Resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts
###
December 17th, 2008
Dr. Orly Taitz DDS, counsel for Lightfoot v. Bowen, has had her stay application denied by Associate Justice Kennedy:
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
However, she comments that the case is being resubmitted to Chief Justice Roberts:
I decided to write to Roberts. It will be an open letter, that will be posted on the Internet, it will be read at the numerous radio stations around the country, including the radio stations around all the military bases, it will be in the video form on U-tube, the whole country will be watching him.
Dr. Taitz writes further in her commentary that she is using the “process of elimination” to try to figure out which Justices are voting against giving a case hearing in Conference…
Although Dr. Taitz has the best of intentions at heart, this kind of deductive speculation is built on a faulty premise, in my view.
While she certainly has the privilege of being able to resubmit her emergency stay application to whichever other Justice besides Kennedy she pleases, their collective actions in Conference will never be known to anyone outside of that circle of Justices, as it should be.
Cases should be reviewed without thoughts of political expendiency.
Further, I think that Dr. Taitz is failing to consider that it is highly likely that the previous cases already considered were denied their emergency stays not necessarily because of the content of their claims, but rather because the Supreme Court has never been likely to stop the Legislative branch from fulfilling its constitutional duties (e.g.: the Electoral College poses no harm by having voted, per se, on a President-elect).
Instead, the Supreme Court should be reminded by way of a follow-up suit after the Legislative branch has exhausted the electoral process that the chosen nominee, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, is very likely an ineligible candidate for the presidency.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=1987
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.