fast911ray 0 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 You may or may not have heard about the proof of Obama's citizenship issue. Well it appears that it has reached the Supreme Court and the case is on the docket. You can Google Supreme Court and look at the docket. The docket is 08-570 and another is 08A391. The case number is 08-4340. Justice Souter has the case and issued a petition requiring a response by December 1,2008. Obama's lawyers tried to block this by an injunction which was denied by Justice Souter. If Obama is truly a "Natural born Citizen" which He is required to be by the Constitution, why the foot dragging and all the lawyers? He has yet to produce a valid Birth Certificate. His own Paternal Grandmother said she was at his birth in Kenya. Something stinks here and the media will not touch it! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 United States law Federal courts In the United States, certiorari is the writ that an appellate court issues to a lower court in order to review its judgment for legal error and review, where no appeal is available as a matter of right. Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, most cases cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as a matter of right; therefore, a party who wants that court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a "petition for writ of certiorari" in the Supreme Court. If the Court grants the petition (see Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States), the case is scheduled for the filing of briefs and for oral argument. Four of the nine Justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, referred to as the "rule of four." The great majority of cases brought to the Supreme Court are denied certiorari (approximately 7,500 petitions are presented each year, but just 80 to 150 are typically granted), because the Supreme Court is generally careful to choose only cases in which it has jurisdiction and which it considers sufficiently important (especially cases involving deep constitutional questions) to merit the use of its limited resources. See also Cert pool. The granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the Supreme Court has found anything wrong with the decision of the lower court. Granting a writ of certiorari means merely that four of the Justices think that the circumstances described in the petition are sufficient to warrant the full Court reviewing the case and the lower court's action. Conversely, the legal effect of the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is commonly misunderstood as meaning that the Supreme Court approves the decision of a lower court. However, such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times." Missouri v. Jenkins, 515 U.S. 70 (1995). In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created, and that the lower court's decision is authoritative only within its region of jurisdiction. Certiorari is sometimes informally referred to as cert, and cases warranting the Supreme Court's attention as certworthy. One situation where the Supreme Court sometimes grants a writ of certiorari is when the federal appeals courts in two (or more) federal judicial circuits have ruled different ways in similar situations, and the Supreme Court wants to resolve that "circuit split" about how the law is supposed to apply to that similar kind of situation. Issues of this type are often called "percolating issues." Cert. granted sub nom is an abbreviation of the legal phrase "certiorari granted sub nomen", meaning "judicial review granted, under name", indicating that a petition for certiorari of a case has been granted, but that the court granting certiorari is hearing the case under a different name than the one that subordinate courts heard it. For example, the case of District of Columbia v. Heller was known as Parker v. District of Columbia in the court below. According to that... it sounds to me like the SCOTUS says that the decisions of the previous courts are only valid within the realms of their authority. SO... Does that mean that they will take this to the next step? I do not see where it actually says anywhere that they require proof to be presented by December '08. ALSO... ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter. Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed. Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed. WHAT does that mean?!?!? It means literally "FEC (et al) Waives Right to Respond to Berg Petition". They have a right to respond to Berg Petition, but they refuse (give up) to use their right, and they are waiting for a decision from the court. What can we expect to see in this decision? Maybe a new (and this time final (?)) confirmation that Berg doesn't have a "standing" to ask the question he asked? Meaning if the SCOTUS says "pound salt Berg!" he is shit outta luck, and this whole farce is over with. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
chevymann 13 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 So if the planets align and Hussein is unable to become the president, where does that leave us??? Would that automatically make Biden the President elect? Would the VP be choosen by Biden? Election? Speaker of the House? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
IndyArms 10,186 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 Pretty scary times ahead... dontcha think??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mordechai 2 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 What amazes me here is that Mr. Obama was able to get elected, and not first have to prove his citizenship AND that he was born on U.S. soil first. There are those that asked me, "Well, how would I know?" The voter shouldn't have to do the reseach... But, I smelled a rat when he referred to himself as a "Citizen of the World." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Racecar_Guy 0 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 So if the planets align and Hussein is unable to become the president, where does that leave us??? Would that automatically make Biden the President elect? Would the VP be choosen by Biden? Election? Speaker of the House? The Electoral College does not vote until sometime in mid-December I believe. If he is deemed ineligible before then, he will not be a possible choice for the EC to cast a vote for. If its afterwards and the EC already voted him in, then Biden would then become Pres and Pelosi would be bumped to VP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
superA 289 Posted November 21, 2008 Report Share Posted November 21, 2008 I don't understand how Biden would be President. Seems to me like he wouldn't qualify either since a legitimate election never happened. How can you run for V.P. if the President doesn't qualify. That may be so, it just doesn't make any sense. McCain never ran against a legitimate candidate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
G O B 3,516 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Election 2008 redux. Followed by Summer of 1968 redux. "May you live in interesting times" old Chineese curse Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Vultite 57 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 nothing good could become of this anyway, unless they totally reverse the election.....then i would probably fall over of a heart attack and not even be able to enjoy it hahaha Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cvasqu03 21 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 I don't understand how Biden would be President. Seems to me like he wouldn't qualify either since a legitimate election never happened. How can you run for V.P. if the President doesn't qualify. That may be so, it just doesn't make any sense. McCain never ran against a legitimate candidate. Nobody voted for either McCain or Obama. We actually voted for electors who were pledged to vote for one of these two candidates when the electoral college votes. Those electors still got elected regardless of whether or not the person they'd pledged to vote for is qualified or not. Since they could no longer vote for the person they'd pledged to vote for, they'd now be free to vote for whoever they wanted. My guess is they'd vote for Biden, but H.Clinton might try to use this in her advantage. In either case, it's not much good for us, but the constitution has to be obeyed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Although this would be hilarious (Obama being booted from the presidency) for a moment, it would soon turn to as we realize Biden is our new President . Oh man, could you imagine the craziness that would ensue, from the Obama-supporters, if he was removed? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
superA 289 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 This has potential to get very interesting. Gotta love being alive. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
GPalmer 1 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Oh man, could you imagine the craziness that would ensue, from the Obama-supporters, if he was removed? That would be crazy. All the minorities would be up in arms swearing "The Man" was keeping them down. Race riots all over the place when they found out that they weren't going to get their free handouts from the gubbmint! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fast911ray 0 Posted November 22, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 (edited) Shooter and Glocker have that dead on. If it does indeed happen...better have plenty of ammo and mags. Edited November 23, 2008 by fast911ray Quote Link to post Share on other sites
patriot 7,197 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Oh man, could you imagine the craziness that would ensue, from the Obama-supporters, if he was removed? That would be crazy. All the minorities would be up in arms swearing "The Man" was keeping them down. Race riots all over the place when they found out that they weren't going to get their free handouts from the gubbmint! They're only 13% of the population. Let 'em riot. They'll be a lot less than 13% after the riots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
evildog 20 Posted November 22, 2008 Report Share Posted November 22, 2008 Oh man, could you imagine the craziness that would ensue, from the Obama-supporters, if he was removed? That would be crazy. All the minorities would be up in arms swearing "The Man" was keeping them down. Race riots all over the place when they found out that they weren't going to get their free handouts from the gubbmint! They're only 13% of the population. Let 'em riot. They'll be a lot less than 13% after the riots. +1 may seem harsh but would thin the ranks on both sides of the color line of the lazy,hand out,losers that want something for nothing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
fast911ray 0 Posted November 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Let's not forget to add the wannabes who joined that 13%. Another 39% maybe? Fuck me, we'd better start buying more ammo.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
getitat 609 Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 Hello Haven't you seen the interviews? "I ain't gonna have to pay my credit cards, my insurance, my mo'gage...."I ain't even gonna have to pay to put gas in my car!" "O'bama gonna pay for all of it!" "It's our turn, now! We supported him, now he supports us...that was the deal!" Personally, I find 'em really entertaining...I think we should encourage that train of thought at every opportunity. -"Yeah, you GO, girl! Hell with that rent payment, how many chances you gonna get to go celebrate something like THIS? PAR-TY!!!!" Then go park that ghetto-gorilla ass out on the street and wait for your "Saviour Hussein"... Sounds like a pretty desperate group. Helluva "financial planning prospectus" there.... I suppose with that kind of an outlook what else is left but trashing a few buildings, terrorizing some geriatric white folks, looting some businesses.... guido2 in Houston Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PonchoTA 0 Posted November 23, 2008 Report Share Posted November 23, 2008 The Electoral College does not vote until sometime in mid-December I believe. If he is deemed ineligible before then, he will not be a possible choice for the EC to cast a vote for. If its afterwards and the EC already voted him in, then Biden would then become Pres and Pelosi would be bumped to VP. That's not how that works. Biden would become the Pres, and he would (not really, the DNC would) appoint a new VP. Pelosi is only 3rd in line if both the Pres and VP were unable to fill their positions, and then it's only temporary if I recall. If the Pres becomes ineligible, then the VP gets bumped up and a new VP is selected. If for some reason Biden becomes ineligible too, THEN she has a chance, and then only if it occurs before a new VP is selected. hth Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.