34 votes

SCOTUS to hold conference on Obama eligibility

http://redflagnews.com/headlines/just-in-supreme-court-of-th...

Keep all flexible appendages crossed.

Addendum - Conference scheduled for February 15, 2013 - http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfile...

Comment viewing options

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

Don't Hold Your Breath

Foreigners have run this country for years. Not gonna stop now.

skippy

True, but the American people

True, but the American people have also been asleep for years and that's not the case anymore.

Wing-eared Traitor!

.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

YouTube link

News travels fast these days. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtFvKBuwvvE

Obama is legit.

If you understand that his biological father is NOT Barack Hussein Obama Senior, then you'll understand that he is in fact a natural-born U.S. Citizen. When the SCOTUS reviews all the classified info, they'll say he's legit too. But that classified info will remain classified and we'll never know why SCOTUS will have declared Obama legit.

Obama simply just doesn't want you to know WHO his BIOLOGICAL father really is. That's why this is being dragged out.

See here to understand who is Obama's biological father:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrrnkKmUzo

BTW, Obama looks nothing like BHO Senior. He really resembles his biological father and is a great orator like his father!

Great Orator? He reads off a tele prop, anyone can do that.

..

A.Hansen

I'm just emphasizing the

I'm just emphasizing the resemblances between father and son, both visually and audibly apparent.

I agree

.

Obama looks a bit like Prince Charles.

.

It doesn't really matter who

It doesn't really matter who his father is. An official record was forged to conceal information. More serious are the Federal crimes of falsifying Selective Service registration and Social Security numbers.

.

.

It may be a really long shot but

at least it is going to conference. It was originally submitted to Justice Kennedy 12-11-12. He turned it down12-13-12. She resubmitted to the Chief Justice.

It's going to the SCOTUS!!?? Sweet!

John Roberts is the judge???

Son of a...

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Gun control..and now this lingering Obama eligibility scandal.

I smell a pattern, a prelude to "martial law", perhaps...(been and lived through one).

Supremes will not take the case

Supremes will not take the case. Maybe they will site lack of standing. Or maybe just stonewall it. Ms. Taitz does not have a stellar history of litigation on this matter.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

After you do the research on

After you do the research on how skewed the case has been treated in the various courts you will perhaps then be qualified to make a definitive statement on what SCOTUS will or will not do. Eric Holder will never do his job in this matter. A correct and proper forensic investigation was conducted that proved probable cause for a further investigation.

WHITE WASH!!!

Roberts is a traitor!!!

We should have known, shouldn't we?

I'm just the average American working every day for the last 40 years. I wish "We the People" would open our eyes and see what's happening. I've been concerned about all the presidential nominees to the SCOTUS until I realized, they are all going liberal on the bench at strategic times. I looked at the history such as Eisenhower's appointments, and then Reagan's. They get to the bench and want to make some sort shock to the world. Even dead, Eisenhower's still shaking his head over his appointments to the bench i.e., Earl Warren and William Brennan.

There has to be a discerning and study in the selection to try and avoid the abandonment of principle done by the justice once on the bench, i.e. Souter, Roberts.

I remember Howard Phillip's rigorous objection to Souter's nomination while everyone else had been praising that same nominee.

Phillips was also skeptical about the Roberts nomination. Yet, to watch someone you appointed truly turn on you would be so so hard to take. So many Republican appointees turned out to be unfriendly to the true conservative constitutional cause.

Howard Phillips' on Roberts, - " People say you can't tell how a Supreme Court nominee will turn out once on the bench. I respectfully disagree. In most cases, it's very clear. I opposed the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor ....I opposed David Souter because I read his senior thesis at Harvard...he's a legal positivist....he rejected all higher law theories, such as those spelled out in our Declaration of Independence....I testified against Ruth Bader Ginsburg ... She saw the Supreme Court as a Supreme Legislature...She was on the far Left of virtually every issue. Yet, only three members of the U.S. Senate voted in opposition to her confirmation. Only eight voted in opposition to Breyer. With respect to Judge Roberts,...It is clear that while he claims to have no overarching judicial philosophy he does have a point of view on most of the big issues. But that point of view is overshadowed by his pragmatism and his desire to stay within what is perceived as the mainstream."

He (Phillips) added that “It is another example of how Judge Roberts seems to go out of his way to pander to those on the Left who might otherwise oppose him.”

“We do not need another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor, or David Souter,” said Phillips

Another interesting statement, " I respect the fact that Bush did some serious study before he nominated Roberts, and, from a political standpoint, it's a brilliant appointment. But, there are two kinds of leaders, one is a leader who is willing to go for the very best and is willing to get only 51 percent. There's another kind of leader who makes preemptive concessions so that he can get 85 percent support. Bush is an 85 percenter. Those 51 percent battles are hard to win, but they're worth winning."

Phillips apparently wanted someone better than Roberts and expected that there would be a fight for it to get it done. I guess this is one of the situations, "the best is the enemy of the good". They settled for good ol' Roberts. I would like to have seen the names of them on the best list.

These quotes of Phillips were during the nomination process of Roberts.

It appears that Mr. Phillips was right again.

I found the following four part interview with Mr. Phillips very good read. Check it out.

http://www.flynnfiles.com/blog/phillips/phillips1.htm
http://www.flynnfiles.com/blog/phillips/phillips2.htm
http://www.flynnfiles.com/blog/phillips/phillips3.htm
http://www.flynnfiles.com/blog/phillips/phillips4.htm

Have a blessed day.

The night is far spent, the day is at hand.
And those who have not heard shall understand.

agreed

agreed

This so called "conference"

This so called "conference" would be nothing more than what they do with any case that comes to them, which is decide if they want to hear it. They need at least 3 justices to agree to hear it. Don't hold your breath. About 95% of cases that they are presented with are denied.

Well there are 4 conservative

Well there are 4 conservative judges and 1 flip-flopper. If Obama were to make some kind of clearly unconstitutional gun law, I could see the conservatives bringing it in. Because if ruled against Obama, it would nullify every single law he's signed.

that's true but you have to

that's true but you have to think about what they decide to judge. They will often forego things they think are just too "stupid" or "irrelevant" or however they see it. You never know what they will think or say. My guess is they are not going to try to make waves with an elected president. I could be wrong but I doubt they'll hear it. That's just my opinion. I'm a 3rd year law student. That doesn't make me an expert of course, but i know a bit about how they work. My guess is they won't hear it. If I'm wrong, awesome. But don't get your hopes up.

Yeah, I'm not going to get

Yeah, I'm not going to get optimistic about it. But I could see a possibility. You'll probably end up being right.

Eh we'll see. Like i said.

Eh we'll see. Like i said. They could end up hearing it but I doubt SCOTUS will be trying to be making any waves with an elected president. That's just how they are. I highly doubt they'll get into something like that. If they did it wold be historic.

You know how Capone

Was taken down, tax evasion. I can't think of a more fitting and ironic way to bring him down.

On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.

Agreed. It's always about

Agreed. It's always about the details.

That incompetent judge in California, Judge England, should be disbarred for dismissing Orly Taitz's case.

You know he didn't file taxes. Everyone knows it.

And if he did he used a false Connecticut social security number.

He didn't have his own so how could he not be a tax cheat.

.

The best of both worlds

Have his cake and eat it too. Not. Lets see him defend a two pronged attack.

On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.