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

[Chilled]

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

[Godwit2]

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?

[Chilled]

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?

I don't think that calling this a reversal of a decision is an accurate reflection of what it actually is. Without getting bogged down in the accuracy of that description, your question is obviously one that only Roberts (or one of his clerks) can definitively answer, but a pretty good educated guess can be made from known SCOTUS prior practice.

First of all you have to remember she is simply petitioning for a "stay" not a writ.

Theoretically Roberts could have denied the stay all on his ownsome, but it could and probably would then have been repeatedly presented to each of the other justices, one after the other. In such potential circumstances the SCOTUS routine practice when a stay or other motion has been denied by one justice and then re-submitted to a second justice, is that the second justice approached will submit it to the full Court (in order to dispose of it once and for all). That automatically involves it being listed for conference. That doesn't mean it will actually be discussed at the conference. That will only happen if one justice puts it on the "discuss" list. Failing that it is automatically denied.

If any single justice puts this on the discuss list, it will be known well before the 15th February because the Justice Department will be asked by SCOTUS to respond and their response will be recorded. If they aren't asked by SCOTUS to respond you can take it to the bank that it isn't on the discuss list and that it will simply be denied. I'd put money on the latter.

[Godwit2]

I don't think that calling this a reversal of a decision is an accurate reflection of what it actually is. Without getting bogged down in the accuracy of that description, your question is obviously one that only Roberts (or one of his clerk's) can definitively answer, but a pretty good educated guess can be made from known SCOTUS prior practice.

First of all you have to remember she is simply petitioning for a "stay" not a writ.

Theoretically Roberts could have denied the stay all on his ownsome, but it could and probably would then have been repeatedly presented to each of the other justices, one after the other. In such potential circumstances the Court's routine practice when a stay or other motion has been denied by one justice and then re-submitted to a second justice, is that the second justice approached will submit it to the full Court (in order to dispose of it once and for all). That automatically involves it being listed for conference. That doesn't mean it will actually be discussed at the conference. That will only happen if one one justice puts it on the "discuss" list. Failing that it is automatically denied.

If any single justice puts this on the discuss list, it will be known well before the 15th February because the Justice Department will be asked by SCOTUS to respond and their response will be recorded. If they aren't asked by SCOTUS to respond you can take it to the bank that it isn't on the discuss list and that it will simply be denied. I'd put money on the latter.

Thank you.

[Chilled]

In case anyone doesn't realise what she is actually petitioning for it is this...

1. A stay of certification of results of the California election for the U.S. Senate pending resolution of primary election results and of one and a half million invalid voter registrations.

2. A stay of certification of presidential election in California and certification of any and all votes for candidate Obama pending resolution of the issue of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of his Indonesian citizenship, due to the fact that according to his mother’s passport records his last name is Soebarkah and he is seeking to become a U.S. President under a name that is not legally his and due to his use of forged IDs, specifically a forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service Certificate and a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number as proof of his identity.

That's all. She hasn't submitted the whole case as a petition for certiorari.

Scotus is not going to "stay" two completely moot processes that are done and dusted. This is a no brainer.

[RossLunch]

In case anyone doesn't realise what she is actually petitioning for it is this...
1. A stay of certification of results of the California election for the U.S. Senate pending resolution of primary election results and of one and a half million invalid voter registrations.

2. A stay of certification of presidential election in California and certification of any and all votes for candidate Obama pending resolution of the issue of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of his Indonesian citizenship, due to the fact that according to his mother’s passport records his last name is Soebarkah and he is seeking to become a U.S. President under a name that is not legally his and due to his use of forged IDs, specifically a forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service Certificate and a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number as proof of his identity.

That's all. She hasn't submitted the whole case as a petition for certiorari.

Scotus is not going to "stay" two completely moot processes that are done and dusted. This is a no brainer.

That's all? That's all? What question could be more important to this country right now than if Barry Soetoro was a legitimate and legal candidate from the beginning.

Just the fact that he lived in Chicago should exclude him for consideration for any office other than dog catcher or community organizer (which ever is the lesser.)

[ColdWater]

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...d.php?t=179359

[Chilled]

http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/s...d.php?t=179359

As a self employed man who travels a lot there's a limit to how much time I'm prepared or able to devote to disassembling the utter nonsense and outright lies this woman posts as press releases and as regards how many different threads I can do it in, despite the fact that this entire phenomena of conspiracy theories and the gullibility of the public does really fascinate me enough to have held my interest since 9/11 truther time til now. I've never learned so much about US law and legal processes than I've learned in the 4/5 years of the birther campaigns. Pity that very few birthers appear to seek the same learning themselves and instead get suckered by disingenuous 'press releases' from Orly Taitz and other paypal button con-men/women.

Suffice to say that there never was any 'hearing' or 'case' scheduled at Scotus in the first place. She simply applied for a stay of two things that were already moot. Any one of the justices, including Kennedy or Roberts to whom she submitted the same application one after the other, have the authority to grant stays completely off their own bat in circumstances when they think an application has merit. Her application was effectively denied the moment Roberts put it 'on the conference list' under bog standard routine procedures in such circumstances. Clearly it was never on the actual 'discuss list' as Scotus did not request the defendant (who by the way is Bowen, not Obama) for any response which request would have been mandatory (and docketed) had they ever been going to discuss the application.

This was not a petition for a writ of certoriari regarding the whole case that was dismissed by lower original and appellate courts. Even if it had been such a petition, Scotus would not ever have been examining any 'evidence' in that connection. The submission of such 'evidence' was utterly pointless in a stay application. That being understood her nonsensical allegation about Scotus clerks treatment of her sunbmissions is ridiculous in every possible sense. Her comments ought to earn her severe sanctions. The woman is an incompetent buffoon. Only the cream of the most gullible of gullible, or those who haven't the slightest clue how Scotus works, would not see right through this 'conspiracy to hide evidence' nonsense she is now aimlessly flailing around with....and that's quite apart from the reality that nothing she forwarded to Scotus would be considered as meeting the ROE definition of 'evidence' by any court in the first place.

[Chilled]

That's all? That's all? What question could be more important to this country right now than if Barry Soetoro was a legitimate and legal candidate from the beginning.

Nice strawman switch of the meaning of what I said. It would of course be vitally important if anyone not eligible were ever put up for election and are elected. However, so far, all allegations that such a thing happened in this case have been examined and soundly rejected by every ballot challenge commission and court to have heard them.

The "that's all" comment is simply about the fact that what she chose to do was apply for a stay of two procedures as opposed to applying (or more accurately in that scenario, 'petitioning') for Scotus to examine and rule on the judgements passed down by the lower courts on the whole case.

The two things she applied for a stay of had already occurred. They were and are moot. Scotus does not have Dr Who's 'Tardis', even if in some parallel univese rational people like Scotus justices ever did think her absurd allegations have any merit.

Just the fact that he lived in Chicago should exclude him for consideration for any office other than dog catcher or community organizer (which ever is the lesser.)

There's a procedure for trying to get a condition like that put on the statutes too, though I wouldn't hold my breath on any attempt succeeding

Until then the country seems stuck with it being left up to each voter to decide how much a Presidential candidate having lived in Chicago matters to them.

[RossLunch]

Nice strawman switch of the meaning of what I said. It would of course be vitally important if anyone not eligible were ever put up for election and are elected. However, so far, all allegations that such a thing happened in this case have been examined and soundly rejected by every ballot challenge commission and court to have heard them.

The "that's all" comment is simply about the fact that what she chose to do was apply for a stay of two procedures as opposed to applying (or more accurately in that scenario, 'petitioning') for Scotus to examine and rule on the judgements passed down by the lower courts on the whole case.

The two things she applied for a stay of had already occurred. They were and are moot. Scotus does not have Dr Who's 'Tardis', even if in some parallel univese rational people like Scotus justices ever did think her absurd allegations have any merit.



There's a procedure for trying to get a condition like that put on the statutes too, though I wouldn't hold my breath on any attempt succeeding

Until then the country seems stuck with it being left up to each voter to decide how much a Presidential candidate having lived in Chicago matters to them.

If a person applies for a job as a carpenter and lies about his experience, it will become immediately apparent on beginning work that the person has no experience and is fired for his inabilities. However, if a person falsifies a medical doctor's degree and license, his inabilities can cause devastating consequences or death to his patient. Then the consequences for the false doctor is ramped up from firing to charges of premeditated murder. The impact of an incompetent and invalid president can and have had epic consequences for this nation.

I think you move forward just a bit too fast on: "The two things she applied for a stay of had already occurred. They were and are moot. Scotus does not have Dr Who's 'Tardis', even if in some parallel univese rational people like Scotus justices ever did think her absurd allegations have any merit."

It is not moot until and if the SCOTUS hears and rules on the case. Then and only then, will these points become moot.