SCOTUS to Decide Whether to Hear Taitz Obama Eligibility Case
Posted by By GeorgeM at 9 January, at 16 : 10 PM Print
They’re not hearing the case- just deciding whether to even take it. They have done this before and always turned them down. Roberts is NOT our friend on ths- just Thomas and Scalia. Takes 4 votes to schedule an actual hearing. Kagan and Sotomayer should recuse but won’t. Let us pray.
read on Taitz site:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=375765
What about Alito and Kennedy?
William Rawle, 4 months ago
We’ll see.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
My mistake, Kennedy already denied this once and she refiled with Roberts. Usually the second Justice in such cases then refers it to the whole court otherwise she could just keep refiling it as each Justice denies it. He is basically short circuiting the process to bring it to an end faster.
William Rawle, 4 months ago
Put them ALL on record.
Ray, 4 months ago
Santa Clause came to town.
What about justice for Voeltz?
Uncle Sam, 4 months ago
George, George, George. When will you consult the rules. Heaven knows that Orly doesn’t.
This is an Application for Stay. It requires FIVE Justices to grant a hearing, not four.
So name the five who are likely to vote in favor of this. Kennedy, Roberts are out. You seriously think Ginsberg, Sotomayr and Kagan will? That leaves four, George. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
Jeremy, Jeremy, Jeremy:
1. How many Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case before it can be placed on the docket?
Four.
Source: http://www.shmoop.com/judicial-branch/faq.html
If you actually read the posting, you wouldn’t be asking these questions.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
Jeremy may be right if orly is petitioning for a stay.
“If the full Court acts on an application, five Justices must agree in order for the Court to grant a stay, but the votes of only four Justices are required to grant certiorari. Quite often an application will request a stay from the Court pending the timely filing and disposition by this Court of the party’s petition for writ of certiorari.”
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/reportersguide.pdf
William Rawle, 4 months ago
William, thank you. George never believes me.
Orly is not petitioning for cert. This is an application for a stay. It requires FIVE Justices for a stay.
As I said. Not. Gonna. Happen.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
I read the posting George. YOU didn’t read the application for stay, or the Supreme Court’s Rules, George.
Now, which of us has the reading problem?
Jeremy, 4 months ago
Actually I Did read it. I may have been wrong about the number of votes, as I interpreted the 4 votes to get on the docket.
You obviously didn’t understand what I wrote, as I indicated no optimism at all that they would vote in her favor.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
Just because I’m not a birther does not mean what I post is misinformation. Loyola U. awarded me a J.D.for good reason — I demonstrated my proficiency in the law. I read — and re-read — the rules of the court before I file anything, every single time, even after 20+ years of practice. So I know my sh**.
In 2009 one of Orly’s then-assistants contacted me through an intermediary to ask for me assistance in civil procedure, but Orly did not like it when someone tried to tell her she was wrong and misunderstood things. So I left her to her own devices — and her online law degree. None of you birthers have ever believed whatever I’ve posted about law and procedure.
No skin off my teeth.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
Jeremy: You may be correct on procedural matters. What we question is either: your ability to come to a valid conclusion that Obama can’t prove his eligibility, or your patriotism. It is obvious about the document forgeries, illegal use of dozens of SSN’s and more. So far, I have seen nothing but one-sided legal interpretations, outright fraud, evasion and procedural tricks in courts. Settled law, regulations, words of founders and key statesman seem to indicate that he doesn’t meet the legal grounds for natural born citizenship. If this is how legal skills are being used, it is a huge breach of trust and waste of resources to keep an America-hating NWO Socialist illegally in office, where he can do the most harm. You know it and I know it, unless you’re stupid, which doesn’t seem to be the case.
As you know, we have put our efforts into helping multiple attorneys and pro se litigants. We don’t agree with all of their strategies, to put it diplomatically. We try to cover what is going on, to inform the eligibility challenge and wider community. “Birther” is a perjorative attempting to marginalize and distort what we are doing, shyster.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
Sorry, George, but the courts consider the law “settled.” That is why the Supreme Court declines to hear these cases.
Where did you earn your law degree? Surely they covered this in your first year. All accredited law schools teach this.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
I agree that the law was settled by SCOTUS in 1875 and numerous other things reinforce that.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
Sorry, but you have miscontrued dictum. Very common for a layperson,untrained in the law.
There are one million attorneys in the United States. Only about half a dozen cannot understand (or are willfully misrepresenting) the dictum in Minor. The judges and 999,994 other lawyers understand perfectly what the Court stated.
Wishful thinking will not persuade the courts, or the electorate. Get real and accept that your interpretation is erroneous and will never be adopted by that mythical “one honest judge.” Any rogue judge will be reversed on appeal.
Sorry for the reality check, George. You would be more productive if you work to defeat the legislation that Obama would otherwise sign into law in the next four years. He has a lame duck second term and will be able to push through legislation unless you work to defeat it.
Get hopping.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
A real Libertarian wouldn’t be saying what you have been, Jeremy. It was necessary to determine Minor’s status before ruling on her voting rights in Minor v Happersett, the 1875 precedent that clearly defined that a natural born Citizen is the offspring of American citizen parents. Somehow, I don’t think you’re more credible than Edwin Vieira and Herb Titus on this matter. Nor would you be so persistent on this issue on this particular web site if you didn’t have an agenda. “Libertarian?” Not likely. Obot? Highly likely.
It makes more sense to attack the proximate cause (embedding of anti-Constitutionalists) than the symptoms of all the laws, regulations and rulings being generated by fellow travelers. That’s Cloward-Piven in action and can only be managed by stamping out the fires at their source.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago
P.S. I am a libertarian, contrary to what you no doubt believe.
A realistic libertarian. Limited government, not just in business but also including limited intrusion into one’s personal affairs.
I doubt you will believe me, however. You are convinced that anyone who doesn’t buy into your birther theory must be an Obama fanatic. But, as I’ve said, no skin off my teeth.
Jeremy, 4 months ago
If that is so, why do you spend so much time and effort as a troll? If you’re for limited govt., you certainly wouldn’t be wasting your time covering the tracks of AKA “Obama,” who is anything but. I have no more patience for your lying. Begone, troll.
GeorgeM, 4 months ago