So what will the SCOTUS so on the 5th?

[jallman]

I disagree. No one with authority has asked to see his BC, so he has no reason to show it to him. How is he not answering to the constitution if no one has asked to see it? Furthermore, we know he's a valid citizen because his home state has confirmed it. He has in no way shape or form flounced the constitution!

I do find it funny that you, who always decries how immature and petty the left is, is finding any and every excuse to attack Obama's character, especially on non-issues like this. It seems just a bit hypocritical.

No, immature and petty is not meeting a reasonable request. I would love to go get my license and be able to point them to my website when I am asked for a birth certificate. I wonder how that will fly.

 

[Renae]

Personally I think SCOTUS will just dismiss it on some grounds of the petitioner not having status to bring the claim.

However they could rule that the question has merit and demand a copy to make it all go away. Afterall, IF and I mean IF it were that Obama really did not meet the requirement to be President, I.E. born outside of the US, and it became known later.. like say someone stole his BC and got it out to the public, the MESS would be atrocious. Much better to nip this in the bud and move on yes?


After all, admit it guys, the constitutional crisis that would erupt if Obama were in fact not eligble is enough of a reason to demand to see the original BC just to stop any potential hell later.

 

[Invayne]

I think one of his cronies is trying to tell us something here....

'Natural-born' requirement called 'stupidest provision'

Also 'discriminates, outdated, undemocratic and assumes birthplace a proxy for loyalty'



By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

An associate lawyer in a Chicago-based firm whose partner served on a finance committee for then-Sen. Barack Obama has advocated for the elimination of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born" citizen, calling the requirement "stupid" and asserting it discriminates, is outdated and undemocratic.

The paper was written in 2006 by Sarah Herlihy, just two years after Obama had won a landslide election in Illinois to the U.S. Senate. Herlihy is listed as an associate at the Chicago firm of Kirkland & Ellis. A partner in the same firm, Bruce I. Ettelson, cites his membership on the finance committees for both Obama and Sen. Richard Durbin on the corporate website.

http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/81-1/Herlihy.pdf

We should call this ignorant bitch and raise hell with her!:lol:
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.

 

[Renae]

I think one of his cronies is trying to tell us something here....




We should call this ignorant bitch and raise hell with her!:lol:
Kirkland & Ellis LLP > Herlihy, Sarah P.

Yeah I saw that too, makes you go, as Arsenio would say "hmmmmm"

 

[Iriemon]

You haven't done ANY looking into this have you?

Go look it up.

No thanks. I'll give your unsupported assertions the weight unsupported assertions usually deserve.

 

[American]

I've said all along that the laser-printed, reissued certificate they put forth is NOT an original document.

 

[American]

No thanks. I'll give your unsupported assertions the weight unsupported assertions usually deserve.

Here is a fine example of a liberal debate response. Please study it closely, notice its sophisticated nuances and wealth of thoughful wisdom.

 

[Renae]

No thanks. I'll give your unsupported assertions the weight unsupported assertions usually deserve.

I was talking about the way Hawaii worked in the 1960's. Maybe you're afraid of facts? Eh.. I dunno, sure seems like it.

 

[Invayne]

Facts can be VERY inconvenient sometimes.

 

[jfuh]

Jfuh, at the time the COLB was issued, back in the 60's, anyone could get a COLB... it isn't a Birth Certificate.

That has the actual hospital, and doctors name... and yet you ignore this fact.

A COLB is almost worthless for proving citizenship.

That's not what I asked, please answer accordingly first

 

[TheNextEra]

No goddamn co0nservative complaining has answered my question, what legal authority has said a COLB does not count as citizenship?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So, does anyone have any detailed info from an official source in re the SC's agenda and/or activities? It'd be nice to see what it is the SC thinks it will be doing.


As a side note, what is the evidence that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen?

 

[jfuh]

So, does anyone have any detailed info from an official source in re the SC's agenda and/or activities? It'd be nice to see what it is the SC thinks it will be doing.

Indeed. Perhaps it may be that the SC is trying to establish a precedent for future instances since the lower court said there were no grounds for the guy who was suing.
SC might be using this to say, a yes or no on whether or not the individual has grounds to sue.

As a side note, what is the evidence that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen?

To be fair, the burden of proof does rest with Obama - which he has already provided.

The only argument that can be made is that the proof is un-authentic which then the burden rests with those that claim it isn't authentic; which I've yet to see any factual evidence of.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What will the SCOTUS do on the 5th? Not much

Here's the info:

Docket for 08A407

No. 08A407
Title:
Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
v.
Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
Docketed:
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
​

AFAICT
So on the 5th the SC will decide whether or not to grant a stay until the court decides whether or not to hear a case.

The factual answer for the OP is 'not much'

Here's the guy bringing the case:

from here: Sonoran News / Justice Thomas

Leo C. Denofrio, [sic] who retired his license to practice law to become a professional poker player, appears to have the most promising lawsuit challenging Obama and other candidates' eligibility to become President of the United States under constitutional requirement they be "natural born" citizens.
​

Turns out he's contesting McCain's eligibility too.

Interestingly enough, this case claims that Obama WAS born in Hawaii.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What will the SCOTUS do on the 5th? Not much

a plain englische explanation here

Justice Thomas Forces Supreme Court to Probe Obama's Citizenship - NAM


with this interesting note:

Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade. “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. “This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”
​

 

[jallman]

So, does anyone have any detailed info from an official source in re the SC's agenda and/or activities? It'd be nice to see what it is the SC thinks it will be doing.


As a side note, what is the evidence that Obama is NOT a natural born citizen?

This is just a hunch but I imagine they'll be taking a look at a birth certificate and saying, "Next?"

 

[Simon W. Moon]

http://www.afro.com/DesktopModules/...riendly.aspx?itemId=2273&PortalId=1&TabId=456

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What will the SCOTUS do on the 5th? Not much

This is just a hunch but I imagine they'll be taking a look at a birth certificate and saying, "Next?"

Apparently, they won't even be doing that. This particular suit concedes as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. So Obama's BC is not relevant to this case

 

[jallman]

Re: What will the SCOTUS do on the 5th? Not much

Apparently, they won't even be doing that. This particular suit concedes as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. So Obama's BC is not relevant to this case

Well there you have it then. Case closed.

 

[Hatuey]

Obama goes through 2-3 universities in the U.S., runs for Senator, buys a home and then eventually president and not ONCE is he asked to prove that he is a citizen of this country? As I've said before. Ninja Nigga.

 

[Iriemon]

I have mine, and my childrens.

Good for you. Run for president.

 

[Iriemon]

Here is a fine example of a liberal debate response. Please study it closely, notice its sophisticated nuances and wealth of thoughful wisdom.

I agree, folks should.

A good debater who makes an assertion of fact can back it up, right?

 

[Iriemon]

I was talking about the way Hawaii worked in the 1960's. Maybe you're afraid of facts? Eh.. I dunno, sure seems like it.

I'll decline to take your say so as fact, since you are apparently unable to back up what you claim as fact.

 

[Zyphlin]

It's not so much that I'm comparing women's panties to a government issued document, it's that I'm hoping to see her panties. What part of this don't you understand? If I have to bend semantics for that, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to take.

The moment you can get the votes necessariy to add in "and women must have clean thongs on regularly to be elected president" to the constitution, I'll be there agreeing with your demand

You really think the Supreme Court would "ignore" a case re: the man elected our next president? :doh Damn man, it didn't bother SCOTUS, or that other idiot Scalia, to insert themselves into Bush's election and steal it for him...

Start ignoring pointless typical idiotic liberal post in 3...2...1

 

[Renae]

I'll decline to take your say so as fact, since you are apparently unable to back up what you claim as fact.

And you, instead of doing a quick google to learn what I have learned, choose to stay ignorant of the matte so as to not infect you with the remotest thought there is any facet to this case that might make you start to wonder what's the deal with BO...