Barack Obama Not Gonna Be President After All… Oh, Well
Bummer. Looks like we might have accidentally elected a foreigner as president.
I hate it when that happens…
The Supreme Court plans to decide Friday whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation's full-fledged president.
The Supreme Court judges' conference today will consider the lawsuit filed by New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio. He contends Mr. Obama is not a "natural born citizen," as the U.S. Constitution requires.
Mr. Donofrio concedes Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii. He argues, however, that Mr. Obama was a British citizen due to his father's British citizenship.
Clearly, the Supreme Court is going to overturn the results of the two-year presidential election we all endured over an issue that — even at it's most compelling — is little more than a semantic technicality.
I guess we'll just go and start over from the beginning. Or, maybe the Supreme Court can save us all the trouble by installing a new president for the second time in a row. That'd go over well.
Good work that Donofrio guy is doing.
RSS
Cube, I did the homework. Your point is…what, that they wing nuts are never gonna let go of this? Or is there a deeper message? There is no therapy for these unfortunates, I'm afraid.
BTW, I am deeply heartened to hear that Donofrio and Berg are arguing pro-se. Fuck 'em.
DaveW, In a word, yes. People are actually quoting me and the Salon article now on the AOL blog. That's not good. I had to change it up and argue Obama is the Antichrist. That argument is just as reasonable as Obama not being eligible. I offered this as video proof. I'm not so sure they will get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40CMaNt_t8E
*Jeremy, On AOL I noticed your exact language written by someone named Ladyfyre. There are some better ones to lift bub.
Oh, now hold on a minute, there, Cube. I thought everyone knew that Obama is the Antichrist.
I mean, where is the PROOF that he is NOT????? What does his campaign/administration have to HIDE???? Why do they not produce his Baptismal Certificate. I'm not talking about his Certificate of Live Baptism. We all know that that is not an official record of God's Will. I'm talking about the actual Baptismal Certificate, that is registered in the Kingdom of Heaven. And, where is the PROOF, I mean real, actual, living, palpable, tactile, certified, raised-stamp, audio-visual, testified, codified, marked-with-a-B-and-put-in-the-oven-for-baby-and-me PROOOOOFFFFF, with a Capital PROOOOOFFFF that he is NOT the ANTICHRIST???? With more exclamation points than I have question marks????????? What does his administration have to hide, here? Everything they say is a lie, and where is the proof that it is not?
Barack Obama not the Antichrist? That's just crazy talk.
In the interests of intellectual honesty, despite early reports stating The Supreme Court would decide whether to take the case on Friday past, they could decline to take it on Monday in a more explicit manner. Also in the interests of intellectual honesty, those who think they will take it are morons.
To be clear, The Court declined to grant Cert. on Friday which is when it was reported they would. WSJ seems to take that route. I think it's omission from the order is highly indicative of its flush down the toilet. However, A.P. is reporting they will decide on Monday. This is not a shock to me at all considering no one is in the room in the Court when The Rule of Four is in gear. It is a Star Chamber — as it should be for this purpose only. Thus, contradictory reporting from A.P. and WSJ is no surprise. However, I'm curious to know where the report stemmed from claiming it would be announced on Friday.
I had an opportunity to meet with Justice Thomas and Justice Souter in 1994 in chambers and met their law clerks as well. It was truly an amazing experience. Thomas was not at all a bad guy actually. Souter was absolutely brilliant. Cert. is granted in very few cases. The clerks told us how they scour the circuit court of appeals decisions and look for conflicts as a primary method of determining which cases the justices should look at for certiorari. Here there are no conflicts; all of the cases have been dismissed or are languishing. Again the only reason why this is even a "story" is because of Thomas. I maintain The Court's omission is telling as reported in WSJ (and it is true, the Court did not grant Cert. as it was reported they would on Friday) and furthermore this issue would have fast tracked like Bush v. Gore. Lastly, I would love to know what the source of the reporting in the article Dennis linked to stating it would be decided on Friday.
The Court operates in such a stealthy mode with regard to how and when they will take cases and how they decide them. I would love to be a fly in the room when they argue over matters before issuing written opinions. Memos fly back and forth between justices as they craft their opinions. They sit in a room where no one can enter but them. It is really interesting — at least to me. Nina Totenberg (sp), Bob Woodward, and a newbie SCOTUS reporter whose name I cannot recall are a few of the select reporters in history who have had relatively unfettered access to The Court. Woodward's, "The Bretheren" is an excellent book by the way. You can also hear famous oral argument from The Court in an audio series by a guy named Peter Irons entitled, "May It Please The Court." Interesting footnote to that. Brown v. Board was mysteriously missing. I also had a chance to talk with Mr. Irons as I had heard the tape in college. The recording device was smuggled in by either the NAACP or SCLC and was preserved and can now be found. Thurgood Marshall argued that case in part. The Supreme Court is an awesome institution to be respected. For them to take this case would sully their reputation which was tarnished when Bush v. Gore was handed down. I do not think they would want that to happen again despite perceptions to the contrary as to their inner workings. This comment was a fucking riot huh?
And yes DaveW, I'm well aware Obama is the Antichrist. The point of the Salon article is that the conspiracy theorists will never give this up. I'm open to the horrific possibility that the Rule of Four will be the "Four Horsemen" as I like to call them: Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. Even those four would not set out to destroy a decided election. Somewhere in the trenches of the blog is a great piece called "The Dark Court" I believe. I wonder what those folks have to say about this. The scholarly legal discussion on this almost overwhelmingly supports the conclusion this will go no where.
I do not like people mocking the Judiciary. It's an easy mark. The Supreme Court is a wonderful place to visit if you're ever in D.C. and try to get your local congressman to get you tickets to hear oral argument. It truly is a sight to see.
For the record, the post by jeremy on December 6th at 3:36AM was LIFTED DIRECTLY from a post of mine dated 12/5/08 at 9:51PM on page #71. FULL post may be seen here:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/71#comments
Jeremy posted at 9:59PM on page #72, with a fine comment which I presume was his own? His can be seen at:
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/supreme-court-not-considering-obamas-birth-certificate-case/72#comments
JEREMY – Kindly cite your references in the future, thanks
FYI be warned, Cube is nothing but a troll. He's all over the place claiming to be an expert on SCOTUS; consistantly posting false information peppered with psychological drivel and profanity. MO of the anti-constitutionalists? Baffle 'em with b*******
Just one example: Cert was not denied on Friday as he claims, that will not be known until tomorrow.
Per SCOTUS clerk on 12/5/08: "A decision had been made and would be announced on Monday"
@Ladyfyre,
It is nice to see you here on the blog. Obviously, you did not read what I wrote beneath you. I hate to say this, and I have not up until this point, but, a particular Law Review has published one article of mine on The Supreme Court's decisions. It's sort of in every law library in the country. Including your boy at Harvard. So, I think I have a bit more expertise than you do. You epitomize the neurosis explained in the Salon article. No amount of proof will ever appease you. I guess Jeremy down there got his language from your scholarly brain which is wholly inadequate for purposes of legal analysis. Yeah right. You plagiarize others work and credit it to yourself. And, as I said at the onset, as did WSJ, the Court did not grant Cert on Friday when it was said to be decided.
It's unreal how you "birthers" are indeed, crazy. Go follow Alan Keyes' advice and break Presidential Orders. See you in jail.
LadyFrye,
a. None of know each other's true identity (doesn't that make us superheroes? No? Too bad.), nor even if someone posting as 'Cube', for example, is one and the same 'Cube' in each and every post.
b. Anyone posting here can claim any old crazy, lying bullshit and no one would be the wiser. Unless we care to check what that person is saying.
c. The character known as Cube posts often about SCOTUS matters, often makes sense to me, and is often correct. I don't care if Cube is professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown Law School, or a homeless bum typing on a public library computer – Cube is often correct and frequently amusing and sometimes insightful.
You are calling into question the authority of an anonymous online character, and citing as an example one statement which Cube has corrected. Why? What harm do you think Cube is going to do by posting these musings? Why do you warn 'the rest of us' instead of confronting Cube directly?
Of course Cube's posts are suspect. Yours are, too. So are mine. Everyone's posts here are suspect. I believe I can evaluate Cube's accuracy, perspicacity, and veracity for my own damn self, thank you very much.
Thanks DaveW. That was pretty cool. So much for intellectual honesty. When I discovered the contradictory AP report from WSJ, I was fair enough to admit that. These lunatics will admit nothing. Just like the Salon article states, no amount of evidence will ever suffice. What pissed her off was me finding a case her, others, and Donofio rely on that states the Prudden case was reversed. Here is the language from that case which is called United States v. Tonahill (a 5th circuit case) and the link to follow.
"Prudden was subsequently reversed by this Court and Goodman was distinguished in that opinion on the ground that the taxpayer there "had only a grammar school education and was affirmatively led to believe that the information which he was giving the revenue agents was part of the investigation of another taxpayer," elements not present either in Prudden or in the instant case. 424 F.2d 1021, at p. 1035.
5
With the legal underpinnings swept away from the District Court's order granting his motion to suppress, the defendant attempts to turn the Fifth Circuit decision in Prudden to his advantage by arguing that, although Prudden approved silence on the part of investigating Revenue Agents, it expressly disapproved affirmative misrepresentations and said there was a duty not to leave unanswered an inquiry where doing so would be intentionally misleading. He argues that the inquiries of himself and his accountant to the Revenue Agents imposed a duty on them to inform him that a criminal investigation was under way and that their answer affirmatively misled them.
6
We find no distinction between the instant case and Prudden which justifies different results in the two cases. Of course, there is no question, as Prudden pointed out, that Revenue Agents cannot obtain information from taxpayers by fraud, trickery or deceit which misrepresents the nature of the search. But there must be "acts by the agent[s] which materially misrepresent the nature of the inquiry" before there is fraud, trickery or deceit and "the record * * * must disclose some affirmative misrepresentation to establish the existence of fraud, and this showing must be clear and convincing."Prudden at p. 1033 (emphasis added)."
Also of important, is the possibility of a Jonestown Kool Aid fest that will happen when Obama takes the oath of office.
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/430/430.F2d.1042.29426_1.html
ya all bitches it is because he's black that's a bitch move yall trying to pull