0 votes

Elena Kagan and Barak Obama Court dockets:

For a couple of years, I heard that Snopes was not honest and reliable. I guess this proves the point.

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama!


“…. In our Search for the truth...

…...department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions . I went to Snopes to check this out and they said it was false and there were no such dockets so I ‘Googled’ the Supreme Court, typed in ‘Obama-Kagan,’ and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied. Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote Snopes:

Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false.

I went directly to the Supreme Court’s website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking.

Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future.


That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them.

Folks, this is really ugly.

Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on...

Once again the US Senate sold us out!

Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship.

He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it?

The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.

Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?? Elena Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!!

Check out these examples:







If you are not interested in justice or in truth delete this. However,If you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution…By all means, please… PASS it ON!.....…There truly is tyranny

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


knew this for a while .

It does not surprise me and yes...

I will pass it along to others...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

i like to think

that i'm not stupid. I checked the links and not a one of them point to anything related to Obama's eligibility.

Sorry, you lose.

Sorry rokdevil... I saw the

Sorry rokdevil... I saw the supreme court docket info too. This story has been available for some time and is still true. Nice try!

How is that

The docket info is standard stuff, with most of the listed cases pointing to cases much older than BO presidency. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show me ONE case where the claimant was challenging BO's presidency and I'll concede that it requires more investigation. And don't just rant that you saw it but they must have changed/edited/removed it.

Fine, let's take them one by one:

Case started in 1993
REF http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/966193.U.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile... REPEAT

APPEAL Case started in 2005
REF http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/417/417.F3d.1172.-.0...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile... REPEAT

The only case that has anything at all that could possibly be constued to have something to do with Obama.
However, the case had to do with the FEC and a group called "The Real Truth About Obama, Inc."
Was first filed on or before 9/2008. Has to do with a First Amendment challange surrounding FEC regulations 11, 100.22(b), 100.57(a), and 114.15
and the enforcement policy in place. The plaintiff argued that the regulations "chilled" its right to discuss Obama's
position on ABORTION.
REF http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/08...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile... REPEAT

So, shut up already.

obama and judicial foolery ??

it just doesnt jive .. the snopes site is bursting with this idiocy .. let it go now..Obama deserves to fall or succeed on merit.. CONGRESS has spoken . there is no desire to go to the supremes and have a battle that would rip the country apart ..


this another non event ..

Are you kidding me? How about

Are you kidding me? How about trying to SAVE the country from exposed liars and deceivers????

Egg on your face

Apparently none of you made the slightest effort to verify any of this slander but instead blindly accepted it as true because it conforms to your personal biases.

Here's some enlightenment for you:


I doubt any of you will have the integrity to offer an apology to the people at snopes.

Sorry, I saw the supreme

Sorry, I saw the supreme court docket info too. If personal bias means I don't like liars and deceivers running the country...then you're right.. I don't. It is my personal bias... God help us!


"Sorry, I saw the supreme court docket info too."

ROTFL! If you don't want to sound so foolish, you should have tried actually reading the article I pointed you to. If you had, you'd know that not a single one of those docket items was about presidential eligibility -- they were all completely unrelated cases.

Code of Judicial Conduct

(1) A judge shall not accept, directly or indirectly, any gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, favors or other things of value which might reasonably appear as designed to affect the judgment of the judge or influence the judge’s official conduct.

(2) Except as provided in Canon 6B(3) and B(4) below, a judge shall not accept, directly or indirectly, any gifts, loans, bequests, benefits, favors or other things of value if the source is a party or other person, including a lawyer, who has come or is likely to come before the judge, or whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.


Of course there are so many other things just plain wrong with what these criminals did and are doing. It would take a team of well-oiled Philadelphia lawyers to expose the slick Chicago operators.....

She is Supreme Court Justice ...

He is president.

Both done properly.

Advice and conscent.

And popularly elected and vetted.


Let's move forward and stand for someone.

That is different than opposing someone.

Do you understand the difference?

Having said that ...

I like the Snopes argument ...

And if it is a rigged game ...

Focus on that.

You simply used a terrible example to criticize Snopes.

Finally, I am trying to figure out how you searched on Snopes.

I can't find anything.

I'm focused.

You are exactly right. So let's get it.
Both done Properly or did you mean poorly ?

You cannot be there

and NOT be totally gone. It's inevitable and prophesyed.
They actually believe salvation comes by way of LAWS.
That would be human self rightiousness wouldn't it?
Confession is not confession as we have been taught.
Every tongue shall confess, ?
Which is why it will be faked, @ first.

And yes , this is relevent.

snopes called out ...and...Properly DIScredited -

excellent, strikeforce! way to keep your head up, above the numbing muck

"ron paul is not running....ron paul is not running" -bloomberg 'expert' morning after the bloodbath, i mean, debate!


always prevails!

great post..

great post..

kagen and obama are

kagen and obama are progressives correct?

No Doubt About It!!

The worst kind......