It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court to give eligibility case another look (President Obama's status as a citizen)

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look


In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.

Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

At the time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the "motion for recusal" but it changed it on official docketing pages to a "request." And it reportedly failed to respond to the motion.

Available to order now! The definitive answer on Obama's eligibility, in "Where's The Birth Certificate?" by New York Times best-selling author Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Hemenway then submitted a request for a rehearing, pointing out that the situation appeared to be violating the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court.



Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look www.wnd.com...



The Drudge Report
1st go around with the Supreme Court


EDIT to Add - Here is the Supreme Court Docket regarding this article.

Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v. Barry Soetoro, et al.
- See screen shot below. Link takes you to Supreme Court Website, this case.

(Barry Soetoro is supposedly Barack Obamas real name).

February 7, 2011 - Petition for Rehearing fied with the Supreme Court
February 16th - Distributed for Conference of March 4th, 2011


edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Wow... I was not expecting this to occur at all. The US Supreme Court apparently violated their own rules when they made their first decision on this case, and this apparently is the result of them being challeneged on that issue.

I wish Obama would just show the stupid paperwork to prove his citizenship to get this all overwith.

I found this part very intresting - A conversation in front of a house sub comittee Justice Clearence Thomas was being asked questions about requirements for the Presidency as opposed to A supreme court justice. The conversation took a turn when thomas was asked a pointed question about Obama -


Yet after Serrano questioned him on whether or not the land's highest court would be well-served by a justice who had never been a judge, Thomas not only answered in the affirmative but also hinted that Serrano would be better off seeking a seat in the Supreme Court than a chair in the Oval Office.

"I'm glad to hear that you don't think there has to be a judge on the court," said Serrano, "because I'm not a judge; I've never been a judge."

"And you don't have to be born in the United States," said Thomas, referring to the Constitution, which requires the president to be a natural born citizen but has no such clause for a Supreme Court justice, "so you never have to answer that question."

"Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."



Read more: Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look www.wnd.com...



edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


There is nothing in that article (WND is not a news source btw) that says it is being looked at. All I see is someone trying to sell a book.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


There is nothing in that article (WND is not a news source btw) that says it is being looked at. All I see is someone trying to sell a book.


I have never heard of the WND so I am not sure about there reliability. When I looked at the compny info it labels them as a Conservative group trying to stop corruption etc, so it definitely will have another spin on things.

However, as far as your dismissal comment goes, the Supreme Court has confirmed the information.

Here is the youtube video of Justice Thomas having the exchange with Serrano.. After watching it, I am not sure if Thomas was being serious and covered it as a joke, or if it was an outright dimisal of that throught process.



Aside from WND, this is coming from the lawyer from the first go around with the Supreme Court. I will reserve judgment until I see how that case goes.

I stand byt what I said before though, this whole thing could have been settled if the documents were released.. Why continue to take crap over the issue if there is an easy solution that answers the question, which would force others to shut up?
edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Ah, well the thing to remember: an official statement would come from the Bench. I think he was quipping a joke is all. Though I find it offensive that someone in the position of supreme court justice would do something like that regardless of circumstances-of all in politics. They are supposed to be neutral. Certain topics are so hot button political items that it is borderline dereliction to comment or give personal opinion considering the power said opinion holds.


Ah,, Thomas was joking and clearly said "We are evading that question".
edit on 18-2-2011 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Youve never heard of the World Net Daily? Riiiiiiight.

This video is from april of last year. Pathetic attempt to sell Jerome Corsis book. Did you order it?

BTW I saw NOTHING in that video that remotely acts as proof for that article.
edit on 18-2-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Ah, well the thing to remember: an official statement would come from the Bench. I think he was quipping a joke is all. Though I find it offensive that someone in the position of supreme court justice would do something like that regardless of circumstances-of all in politics. They are supposed to be neutral. Certain topics are so hot button political items that it is borderline dereliction to comment or give personal opinion considering the power said opinion holds.


Completely agree to an extent.. I did a check of the US Supreme Court and upcoming issues, and pulled up the case mentioned in the OP. I added that info to the first post along with a Screen shot that actually confirms what the story reported. In early February a petition for rehearing was filed, and accpeted by the court. March 4 2011 is the date of that conference.

If its a technical rule violation by the court, this may just be a cross the T dot the lower case j issue, granting the rehearing, follow the correct rule / procedure, and then dimiss the case.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by aching_knuckles
Youve never heard of the World Net Daily? Riiiiiiight.

This video is from april of last year. Pathetic attempt to sell Jerome Corsis book. Did you order it?

BTW I saw NOTHING in that video that remotely acts as proof for that article.
edit on 18-2-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)


Let me help

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.


Paragraph 2 of the article...

and this from the Supreme Court

EDIT to Add - Here is the Supreme Court Docket regarding this article.

Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
v. Barry Soetoro, et al.
- See screen shot below. Link takes you to Supreme Court Website, this case.

(Barry Soetoro is supposedly Barack Obamas real name).

February 7, 2011 - Petition for Rehearing fied with the Supreme Court
February 16th - Distributed for Conference of March 4th, 2011



Take your personal attacks out of the thread. I have never heard of the WND, and contrary to your accusation I posted the info as well as the Supreme Court Document that verifies the information in the article.

Go troll somewhere else please.
edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


All that it means is the papers were printed out and handed to people who will look at it to see if the case has merit to be heard. Not that the case is going to be heard but that the appeal to get it heard will be looked at and the case merit will be weighed to see if they want to bother with it.


The status means the equivalent of "They printed the memo and will look at it later".

Edit: BTW: That status is applied to every interaction on a docket-It doesnt mean anything-certainly does not mean they will hear the case.
edit on 18-2-2011 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Thanks for the additional info on this.. I appriciate it.

I found this from wiki talking about Supreme Court Protocols-


The conference: assignment of opinions

At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[13] At this conference, each justice - in order from most to least senior - states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.

Justice Scalia has professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[14] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[15] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (which is the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him or her self.




I am not making an argument for or against. I just found the article intresting because of the subject matter. The lawyer for this incident tried this once before and the petition was denied. As I said before its entirely possible this is nothing but the Supreme Court going back to fix a procedural mistake they made.

As far as my personal opinion goes, I dont know why he just does not release the info to put an end to the argument.

The only other legal movement I have seen on this is from the 9th Circuit and it revovled around some documents that were challeneged. I will look to see if it ever was resolved or if its still pending.

As a side note to anyone else who is reading this let me be clear. I posted the info because I found it intresting because of the Supreme Courts decision. Dont confuse me posting this article as being for or against anyone.

If you disagree with the info presented, then counter it.. I am all for that. Dont make it personal.

Thanks
edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-2-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


"The conference: assignment of opinions " is a different phase. The case we are discussing was not heard. The opinions are part of the actual judgment on a case itself.

The phase this case is in is whether they will bother with it. The first time it was tossed and they appealed. As a matter of function they were added onto the docket in a phase saying "we will decide if we will hear it".

The opinions are statements attached to the cases conclusion is all.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





I wish Obama would just show the stupid paperwork to prove his citizenship to get this all overwith.



If it existed, we would have seen it by now! I mean, never before in our history has a governor " locked " someones b/c. Why lock it to begin with? Especially if there is nothing to hide?



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I am sorry, but that is rather obtuse. Simple fact is people did not believe what was offered-how many people did not even bother to look up what was shown or by who?

They want to believe things that fit their narratives. That is all. The obsession on this false issue on a national level is a shame in my oppinion.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

(Barry Soetoro is supposedly Barack Obamas real name).



After her divorce, Dunham married Indonesian student Lolo Soetoro, who was attending college in Hawaii. When Suharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967, all Indonesian students studying abroad were recalled, and the family moved to the Menteng neighborhood of Jakarta.

Source.

There is some indication that Lolo Soetoro did fill out some forms with the name "Barack Soetoro" or "Barry Soetoro" during this time period. But there is no legal document that shows a legal name change, either to Soetoro or from it.

IMO this is all born in an overzealous step fathers attempt to, well, be a father.

~Heff



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


I understand your argument, but you claim its a " non-issue " in a sense, so with that, care to submit evidence that would support your claims? And please don't use some googled item as your basis of evidence, that would surely be " obtuse ".

Fact still remains, that not one citizen has seen Proof of any sort that would extinguish this topic.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Actually the term I would use is divisive manufactured issue.
It was manufactured to undermine. People who believe he was not born in Hawaii would just dismiss all evidence to the contrary as fake. Evidence for him not being born in Hawaii is anecdotal at best.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


Ok, I see your point, but it still doesn't answer the principle? Yeah, maybe a smear campaign, but wouldn't it be that much easier to just prove it, and get all the " debunkers " theories blown out of the water? I mean after all, we are supposedly a country of due process.

Side note: i noticed you avoided answering the above suggestion of validating your argument with proof? Sure your not in politics?

edit on 18-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


I'm sorry, I am really tired, which proof am I missing?
As for furnishing proof, he has-which those claiming he was born in Kenya screamed was fake. Then it faded away to be reborn every few months when the republicans are loosing ground.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by lordtyp0
 


First off get some sleep!


Secondly, the repubs ( not that i am one ) havent lost to much ground, they took the House.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Yes, they took the house but then had to capitulate on several issues-such as defense spending when they wanted to cut trivial funds like NPR and art grants. Basically manufactured scandals are reared up whenever they want to distract the "look a shiney!" approach.

Clinton was white water and the impeachment, Obama has this which is all the dirt they could dig.

The dems tried it back but it was inept in the form of talking about Bushes days of coc aine and the hit and run that faded.

Both sides do it, Republicans tend to be a bit more proficient at it and it certainly helps to have a propaganda machine in the form of Fox news at their disposal.

The supreme court though wont bother with this issue.


Quick edit: yeah Im heading home to sleep-I work graves and its time to leave

edit on 18-2-2011 by lordtyp0 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join