Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here's what will happen tomorrow at the SCOTUS RE Obama

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:36 PM
Original message
Here's what will happen tomorrow at the SCOTUS RE Obama
<snip>

"...the Justices will meet for a routine conference to deal with the cert petitions. This case almost certainly won't even be specifically mentioned, but simply added to the long list of "denials" that issue. There won't be four votes to grant cert, much less five votes to grant a stay. An order to that effect will issue Monday or Tuesday. There's no strangeness, no shennanigans--just standard court procedure. Stop freakin' out, folks."

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/4/10356/4736/960/669237
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. in a normal world, yes.
unfortunately, with this current administration, we've been living in bizarro world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. no, really. this is NOT something to worry about.
There's nothing remotely unusual about Thomas referring the cases to conference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
23. Jeeeesh.
How often does the SC stop the counting of votes in an election and appoint a President ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Oh noes - you's is riGhT aBouT rEpubiKon biZaRo woRlD
me, U, not trust nothing if it got greezy republiKon fingers on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
21. lol! me am laughing at U
me am happy to see the humor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. It doesn't even matter. Obama has already given us his birth certificate.
It's beyond pathetic that the Freepers are pursuing this.


It is entertaining though because it makes them look like the idiots they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. I almost wish the Supremes *would* issue a writ of e coli or whatever it's called
That way, Obama would respond by producing the same state-certified document he posted on his website and the Supreme Court would have to publicly declare that it was legally valid. When they chuck the case out, as they almost inevitably will, it'll just add more fuel to the wingers' fire, with them whining for the next 4-8 years that he has never produced the certificate. Then again, delusional people can tie anything into their delusions, so it probably won't make much difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. OP is right (denial of cert); you're right (that may not be the best thing)
I agree with you that we will be hearing about this for four or eight years.

Someone on Free Republic suggested that it could be brought up as soon as anyone is adversely affected by a statute signed into law by President Obama. That person would argue in court that the law was invalid. I don't deny that some desperate defense lawyer will probably give it a try, but it has even less chance than the current crop of cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Have you heard their rationale for why the media is "covering up" this HUGH story?
It's because when the Fairness Doctrine is brought back, all the media outlets that covered it would be clapped in irons or something :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Some of them have an alternative theory.
The unnamed foreigners who made hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions to Obama, thereby enabling him to buy the election, have also used their financial clout to silence the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. the writ of e coli was produced
12/12/2000 ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Window Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #10
22. LOL! Exactly.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. A response from the Supremes would be better than a "writ of e coli"
LOL @ "writ of e coli"

I think that you are absolute right. The Freeper fools who have wrapped their fading dreams of (what??) around Obama not being a citizen would be hard pressed to let this story go even if the ghost of Obama's mother rose from the grave and signed an affidavit that her son is a U.S. citizen before Jesus Christ himself.

I think it would be ideal if one of the Supremes after this idiotic case has been dismissed actually takes a minute or two and explains WHY it's been dismissed. A sentence that says something like "Obama has been declared eligible for president under the laws of this land. Case dismissed. Regarding the next matter..." would be perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #18
24. ("what??") appears to be President Biden in the real world
However, I think the Freepers genuinely believe that if Obama is declared ineligible then that means that the Republicans really won the election. Since they have little use for the Constitution, apart from the 2nd Amendment (and possibly the 10th), they don't appear to have bothered their beautiful minds with finding out how it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Betsy Ross Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. It just amazes me how stupid some folks are.
I just never get over it. Need I state the obvious that President-Elect Barack Obama would never have reached this state if there was even the slightest shred of evidence that he was not a natural-born citizen? How can anybody not have better things to do with their time and money than pursue this? Unfreaking believable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. Cert Denied. End of story.
indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kegler14 Donating Member (541 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. The biggest evidence against this crap?
Neither McCain nor Hillary ever raised the question --- at least not that we know of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. McCain would have looked very hypocritical in doing so
Considering that he actually WAS born on foreign soil. Hillary would have merely looked silly if she had done it. Just like the Freeper asshats do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Yes, but IF there was any truth to it, there was no reason for her not to raise it in the primaries
According to the Freeps, Hillary had Vince Foster murdered for whatever reason, yet she was too timid to mention something that would have brought down her chief primary opponent? But I'm sure they have some bizarre, complicated explanation for this apparent anomaly, that requires a herculean leap of logic to actually believe, and which they accept without question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Her surrogates DID raise it.
This crap was all over the PUMA sites in the primaries, including the "No Quarter (of a brain)" blog operated by CIA thug Larry Johnson. I don't claim to know whether or not Hillary had any knowledge of this crap, but I'd be willing to be that the vile shitbags Penn & Wolfson did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mike Daniels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
25. I don't get it either. If I believed my opponent was disqualified from running for POTUS
you better believe I'd bring up whatever I thought could support my case including charges that he wasn't a citizen of the USA.

That neither McCain or Clinton made this argument should be enough for most people but I guess the simplest piece of logic never enters a Freeper's mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
11. wasn't there something that was pushed a long time ago about the loser of the frivolous lawsuit
had to pay the court costs of the winner?

As I recall, Clinton never received the court costs from the impeachment proceedings ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
14. It boggles the mind that anyone could be freaking out over of this.
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. in my thread I also say that's the most likely result. But i don't pretend this Option is nothing...
Even if they take a pass, there will be more opportunities. Even if they pass them all up, it's still news that the Supreme court is even tendered such an opportunity.

By the way, who is freaking out? I've not seen that in my thread, at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-05-08 04:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. No. it's not news. It's the way the judicial system works
and the reason this has received so little attention in the main stream media. The only thing unusual about it is that it concerns the presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC