Breaking: Supreme Court Conferring over Obama Eligibility Case Right Now

[MaggieMae]

President Joe Biden is not a better alternative.

He would certainly have my support.

 

[jillian]

I wasn't going to burst his little bubble.

It's so much more satisfying to wait till Monday and say "I told you so".

I've always been impatient. lol..

 

[cutter]

Don't forget the SCOTUS is still pissed off because of the comments Obama made during the State of the Union address last year. Some refuse to attend the speech this year. Maybe pay back time.

 

[goldcatt]

I wasn't going to burst his little bubble.

It's so much more satisfying to wait till Monday and say "I told you so".

I've always been impatient. lol..

All good things to those who wait.

And sorry, Maggie...some poor clerks would have had to dig all that crap out of the cardboard box to scan it, docket it and then actually read it to make sure there wasn't a valid legal argument this time. The fact that they rely chiefly on St. Paul for their legal standing probably made it a quick task though.

 

[rightwinger]

Hey USArmyRetarded..

Are you going to post a thread when the court throws this out as complete nonsense?

 

[Sarah G]

Hey USArmyRetarded..

Are you going to post a thread when the court throws this out as complete nonsense?

I'm surprised he hasn't created a thread about Tom Delay being convicted..

 

[goldcatt]

Hey USArmyRetarded..

Are you going to post a thread when the court throws this out as complete nonsense?

Orders come out Monday between 10 and 11 am Eastern. Just sayin'

 

[rightwinger]

Hey USArmyRetarded..

Are you going to post a thread when the court throws this out as complete nonsense?

Orders come out Monday between 10 and 11 am Eastern. Just sayin'

Damn it!

USArmyRetarded posts Sarah Palin threads between 10 and 11

 

[goldcatt]

Hey USArmyRetarded..

Are you going to post a thread when the court throws this out as complete nonsense?

Orders come out Monday between 10 and 11 am Eastern. Just sayin'

Damn it!

USArmyRetarded posts Sarah Palin threads between 10 and 11

That's his story and he's sticking to it.

 

[MaggieMae]

The brainiacs at World Nut Daily ride again....

Conferences were yesterday. Nothing is happening at the Court today.

Have a look see for yourself.

SCOTUSblog

Yea right goldcatt. You fail as your continued predeliction for irrelevancy demonstrates. They are having a conference on it today. Go look at the calender again.


Update.

A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers

UPDATE: Tuesday an opinion day : SCOTUSblog

Search

No. 10-446
Title: Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Western Center for Journalism. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.

Case Distribution Schedule

The Case Distribution Schedule reflects when petition-stage cases are expected to be considered by the Court in Conference. The "Distribution Date" is the date the petition for certiorari, brief in opposition (if any), and reply brief (if any) are distributed to the Court. The "List" identifies the Conference List on which the case appears. "Paid" cases are those numbered 1 through 4999, following the prefix for the Term. "IFP" (In Forma Pauperis) Cases are those numbered 5001 and above, following the prefix for the Term. The date shown under "Conference" is the date the Clerk anticipates that the Court will consider the case. This date is subject to change without notice.

That docketed item simply means that, chronologically, the court number came up.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[12] 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.

I'm confident that when the justices reach that docketed item, a collective Oh No, not THIS again... will be heard throughout the building.

 

[MaggieMae]

The WorldNetDaily has the cajones to post what many organizations won't because they're cowards. Love those guys.



and I've read this at other newsites too

Oh my, surprise surprise...

 

[MaggieMae]

Don't forget the SCOTUS is still pissed off because of the comments Obama made during the State of the Union address last year. Some refuse to attend the speech this year. Maybe pay back time.

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

 

[goldcatt]

Case Distribution Schedule

The Case Distribution Schedule reflects when petition-stage cases are expected to be considered by the Court in Conference. The "Distribution Date" is the date the petition for certiorari, brief in opposition (if any), and reply brief (if any) are distributed to the Court. The "List" identifies the Conference List on which the case appears. "Paid" cases are those numbered 1 through 4999, following the prefix for the Term. "IFP" (In Forma Pauperis) Cases are those numbered 5001 and above, following the prefix for the Term. The date shown under "Conference" is the date the Clerk anticipates that the Court will consider the case. This date is subject to change without notice.

That docketed item simply means that, chronologically, the court number came up.

Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.[12] 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.

I'm confident that when the justices reach that docketed item, a collective Oh No, not THIS again... will be heard throughout the building.

You're going to make USAR's head explode.

OTOH, I always get this neat mental image of the Justices sitting around, with somebody reading off case names and everybody doing the thumbs up/thumbs down routine. Quite amusing.

 

[cutter]

Don't forget the SCOTUS is still pissed off because of the comments Obama made during the State of the Union address last year. Some refuse to attend the speech this year. Maybe pay back time.

If they make a decision based on being pissed off at something, we're REALLY doomed boys and girls. For those of you who screech on a daily basis about strict adherence to the Constitution, lesson number one should be that the USSC should not rule based on political biases, although it does, but I've never seen a decision handed down because one doesn't "like" the current sitting president.

Obama is the only president to publicly bad mouth the Supreme Court during a State of the Union Address because he disagreed with their decision. That's something that should NEVER be done. Payback's a bitch.

 

[jillian]

The WorldNetDaily has the cajones to post what many organizations won't because they're cowards. Love those guys.



and I've read this at other newsites too

WND isn't a real journalistic source and has no journalistic integrity.

which is why rev moon doesn't care what they say.

 

[USArmyRetired]

The WorldNetDaily has the cajones to post what many organizations won't because they're cowards. Love those guys.



and I've read this at other newsites too

WND isn't a real journalistic source and has no journalistic integrity.

which is why rev moon doesn't care what they say.

If they don't have any integrity, then why does WND have the Sr. most White House press correspondent of all reporters at every White House Press briefing which Gibbs calls on everytime? He's been there for years for WND.

 

[del]

The WorldNetDaily has the cajones to post what many organizations won't because they're cowards. Love those guys.



and I've read this at other newsites too

WND isn't a real journalistic source and has no journalistic integrity.

which is why rev moon doesn't care what they say.

If they don't have any integrity, then why does WND have the Sr. most White House press correspondent of all reporters at every White House Press briefing which Gibbs calls on everytime? He's been there for years for WND.

because he hasn't died.


fuckwit

 

[del]

As we speak, the Supreme Court is conferring over the case Kerchner vs Obama. This case is using the 'Vattel Theory' which the framers refered to when framing Article 2 Section 1 for qualifications to be president. I hope we get a answer soon to put all this to rest. Stay tuned for the results which will hopefully be posted afterwhile.


U.S. Supreme Court confers on Obama eligibility

WASHINGTON – Is this the case that will break the presidential eligibility question wide open?

The Supreme Court conferred today on whether arguments should be heard on the merits of Kerchner v. Obama, a case challenging whether President Barack Obama is qualified to serve as president because he may not be a "natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

Unlike other eligibility cases that have reached the Supreme Court, Kerchner vs. Obama focuses on the "Vattel theory," which argues that the writers of the Constitution believed the term "natural-born citizen" to mean a person born in the United States to parents who were both American citizens.

"This case is unprecedented," said Mario Apuzzo, the attorney bringing the suit. "I believe we presented an ironclad case. We've shown standing, and we've shown the importance of the issue for the Supreme Court. There's nothing standing in their way to grant us a writ of certiorari."

More of this thrilling story and treachery of Obama in link above:

the supreme court reacts to the assertions of Mario Apuzzo and the *Vattel* theory....

 

[JenT]

All right so who claimed WND wasn't a good source and the Court didn't confer?

Don't worry, nobody expects anything like an admission of error...

As for the Supreme Court...I wonder if they were threatened, it's getting that ugly out there

"I don't think the court helped heal the country," said Mario Apuzzo, the New Jersey attorney who argued the case on behalf of retired Navy CDR Charles Kerchner. "We still don't know Mr. Obama's status. … The court is supposed to take cases that are important, and I can't imagine a case more important than this one."

"You need justice to resolve conflicts between people, and when justice is denied people continue to go after each other in a savage way. We did not get justice, " Apuzzo told WND. "For the court to deny our justice sets the country back terribly."

"This decision did not help Mr. Obama," Apuzzo added. "It did not bring legitimacy to his office. Mr. Obama does not have legitimacy of office by the court or by the consensus of the nation, because many people question whether he is a natural born citizen. How does our nation go forward with this kind of result?"

"This matter should have been addressed by the media and political parties early in the spring of 2008 during the primaries. It wasn't," wrote Kerchner Monday morning. "Congress should have addressed this when asked and when constitutionally it was required to. It didn't. The courts should have addressed the merits of the questions when appealed to early on. They didn't. Everyone in our system of government chose appeasement over confrontation and punted the ball to someone else."

Supremes punt on Obama eligibility again

And del, why do you only babble profanity?

 

[rightwinger]

The Supreme Court, like every other court, told you that you are a fucking whacko