Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Supremes To Take A Look AT "O's Elegibility...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    NHRA Division 2
    Posts
    2,079

    Default Supremes To Take A Look AT "O's Elegibility...

    Surprised this hasn't already been posted. I did a search and didn't see anything about it. If it is a repost, delete it or whatever. I have no idea how this will turn out, but it seems to have a little merit to it......

    http://www.examiner.com/article/supr...rged-documents

    When all else fails, I just ask Ms. Oldschool. She knows........



    WIFE is that friendly person and fellow partner that is always with you, to help solve all the problems you wouldn't have if you were single.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    7,872

    Default

    I believe there is already a thread about this down cellar.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    American South
    Posts
    16,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blacknarwhal View Post
    I believe there is already a thread about this down cellar.
    Actually, this is news.

    Taitz has sought to enjoin the State of California from taking certain steps relating to the reelection of Pres. Obama.

    Yesterday, Justice Roberts referred her application for a stay against the state to the full Court --
    Dec 11 2012 Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 13 2012 Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 26 2012 Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
    Jan 9 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
    Jan 9 2013 Application (12A606) referred to the Court.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/12a606.htm

    Taitz has put out a press release -- http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375765

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    456

    Default

    The person who wrote that examiner.com article clearly knows very little about the law, even less about how the SCOTUS works and practically nothing about the actual matter in question.

    The cold reality about this matter is not what some will want to hear, but I'll summarise it as briefly as I can as follows...

    SCOTUS have not agreed to "hear" it, they have simply routinely scheduled it for conference along with dozens, possibly hundreds, of other matters. One of the purposes of the conference stage of procedures is so that SCOTUS can decide which matters to agree to actually "hear" at some time in the future. Many items scheduled for conference are to all practical intents and purposes largely decided by the SCOTUS clerks who go through the details in advance of conference and their recommendations are often simply rubber stamped by the conference.

    That being understood, what is actually before SCOTUS in this matter is not a "case" at all and certainly not a "case about Obama's eligibility". It is simply an application for a "stay" of certification of Obama by California State.

    SCOTUS have scheduled the "stay" application for conference on 15th February. No 'arguments' will be being presented to them other than the content of the written application from Orly Taitz already before them. Ms Taitz has repeatedly proved to be singularly incompetent at making any kind of legal submission. Obama has already been certified by California and will have already been inaugurated as POTUS long before then. Apart from anything else an application for a "stay" will be moot on 15th February.

    Only a very tiny proportion of matters referred to conference are ever even discussed at the conference stage let alone found by conference to merit being scheduled to be "heard" in the future by SCOTUS and the vast majority are simply denied.

    Under all those circumstances it should be abundantly clear to anyone who gives it some rational thought that this particular "stay" application has virtually zero chance of receiving any other response from SCOTUS conference than a simple and straightforward "denied" stamp on the papers. They won't even need to explain why they have denied it.

    Despite the fanciful rhetoric in the linked articles and elsewhere, SCOTUS are not actually "hearing an Obama eligibility case" and the scheduling of this matter for conference is essentially a non-event in any meaningful terms.
    Last edited by Chilled; 01-10-2013 at 02:05 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Central CT
    Posts
    8,477

    Default

    Quoting from Chilled:

    SCOTUS have not agreed to "hear" it, they have simply routinely scheduled it for conference along with dozens, possibly hundreds, of other matters.
    That is what many folks are missing. I mentioned this on another forum earlier. Haven't looked to see how badly I got ripped by the Orly Taitz True Believers.

    Only a very tiny proportion of matters referred to conference are ever even discussed at the conference stage let alone found by conference to merit being scheduled to be "heard" in the future by SCOTUS and the vast majority are simply denied.
    And that nails the lid shut.

    Thank you for your extended remarks.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    It's not where you are, It's where your at!
    Posts
    4,134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilled View Post
    The person who wrote that examiner.com article clearly knows very little about the law, even less about how the SCOTUS works and practically nothing about the actual matter in question.

    The cold reality about this matter is not what some will want to hear, but I'll summarise it as briefly as I can as follows...

    SCOTUS have not agreed to "hear" it, they have simply routinely scheduled it for conference along with dozens, possibly hundreds, of other matters. One of the purposes of the conference stage of procedures is so that SCOTUS can decide which matters to agree to actually "hear" at some time in the future. Many items scheduled for conference are to all practical intents and purposes largely decided by the SCOTUS clerks who go through the details in advance of conference and their recommendations are often simply rubber stamped by the conference.

    That being understood, what is actually before SCOTUS in this matter is not a "case" at all and certainly not a "case about Obama's eligibility". It is simply an application for a "stay" of certification of Obama by California State.

    SCOTUS have scheduled the "stay" application for conference on 15th February. No 'arguments' will be being presented to them other than the content of the written application from Orly Taitz already before them. Ms Taitz has repeatedly proved to be singularly incompetent at making any kind of legal submission. Obama has already been certified by California and will have already been inaugurated as POTUS long before then. Apart from anything else an application for a "stay" will be moot on 15th February.

    Only a very tiny proportion of matters referred to conference are ever even discussed at the conference stage let alone found by conference to merit being scheduled to be "heard" in the future by SCOTUS and the vast majority are simply denied.

    Under all those circumstances it should be abundantly clear to anyone who gives it some rational thought that this particular "stay" application has virtually zero chance of receiving any other response from SCOTUS conference than a simple and straightforward "denied" stamp on the papers. They won't even need to explain why they have denied it.

    Despite the fanciful rhetoric in the linked articles and elsewhere, SCOTUS are not actually "hearing an Obama eligibility case" and the scheduling of this matter for conference is essentially a non-event in any meaningful terms.

    the courts are a joke and proof positive the country has been overthrown.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Partisan, Region 1: Occupied Territories
    Posts
    12,183

    Default

    I can't believe people are still going on about this.

    What's Albert Einstein's definition of insanity?
    Id rather be deplorable than despicable.

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    --- Frederic Bastait

    Everything I post is Fiction and should not be taken seriously by anyone....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MsPaulRevere View Post
    the courts are a joke and proof positive the country has been overthrown.
    That might or might not be true, I'm not going to argue with you.

    However what I would say is that this particular court episode certainly can't in itself qualify as evidence of any takeover or subjucation of the will of the SCOTUS to a Presidential administration having happened recently.

    It is physically impossible for SCOTUS to hear everything that is attemped to be submitted to them. The SCOTUS practice of weeding what gets as far as conference and beyond has operated in much the same manner for at least the last 100 years and it has always been the case that at least 95% of all things referred to conference never progress to the next stage of actually being "heard".

    This particular "stay" application is so inherently bizarre in both content and concept that any related astonishment ought to really be at anyone purporting to be a lawyer having the brass neck to submit it

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chilled View Post
    That might or might not be true, I'm not going to argue with you.

    However what I would say is that this particular court episode certainly can't in itself qualify as evidence of any takeover or subjucation of the will of the SCOTUS to a Presidential administration having happened recently.

    It is physically impossible for SCOTUS to hear everything that is attemped to be submitted to them. The SCOTUS practice of weeding what gets as far as conference and beyond has operated in much the same manner for at least the last 100 years and it has always been the case that at least 95% of all things referred to conference never progress to the next stage of actually being "heard".

    This particular "stay" application is so inherently bizarre in both content and concept that any related astonishment ought to really be at anyone purporting to be a lawyer having the brass neck to submit it
    So, I have a question. Justice Kennedy had already denied the application for stay. Why did CJ Roberts reverse that decision and refer the matter to the full Court?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    547

    Angry

    Yeah,that will be a lot of laughs................

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •