The Supreme Court

[Survival7201]

Is this the day that we thought would never come? It is possibly a fraud, and only time will truly tell. It appears that the Supreme Court has accepted , or will hear evidence to the effect that the President and his supporters did falsify documents , a passport, birth certificate and other documents.

For your thoughtful consideration:

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s "alleged" use of forged IDs; The Supreme Court in an unprecedented move made the hearing a "closed door" session escaping scrutiny from the media and the public. Here is the link to the Supreme Court Docket since so many have written that they needed to see the docket with their own eyes.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.a...les/12a606.htm

http://syndicatednews.net/chief-just...e-p744-161.htm



There may be some truth to the "Birthers" concerns.

Ron

[(1VB)compforce]

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

The time for challenging his eligibility was before or right after the 2008 election, not after he has been in office for 4+ years.

BTW, the article from "syndicated news" you linked to is rambling and nearly incoherent. I had to go research it separately before I could even believe that the case was a birther case. When articles are so poorly written, it immediately calls the credibility of the author into question.

[BrokenSwitch]

Better late than never. There's more important things than mere face to save-- Obama & friends certainly made sure of that.

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Survival7201

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama [/url]

I searched in the SCOTUS link you posted and can not find anything with obama and Taitz on the current docket..

I did find taitz in these two files:

2 items found for your search: Taitz


Search Results:
file type icon Journal October Term 2008
JNL08$IND1—10-14-09 07:41:28 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 2008 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics .................................................. ..................................... II General
file type icon Journal October Term 2010
OCTOBER TERM 2010 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics .................................................. ..................................... II General .................................................. ........................................

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

I searched in the SCOUS link you posted and can not find anything with obama and Taitz on the current docket..

I did find taitz in these two files:

It's not listed as Obama. It's Noonan et. al. vs Bowen. They are challenging the state of California for putting Obama on the ballot. That's why I had to dig to find out that it was even there. Taitz is part of the et. al. (and others) as well as being the Attorney for the Plaintiffs.

[pcfixer]

I don't see this going anywhere. Elana Kagan was USSC Solititor General
and IIRC had previous cases thrown out too. This is not the first one.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

The time for challenging his eligibility was before or right after the 2008 election, not after he has been in office for 4+ years.

BTW, the article from "syndicated news" you linked to is rambling and nearly incoherent. I had to go research it separately before I could even believe that the case was a birther case. When articles are so poorly written, it immediately calls the credibility of the author into question.

I think we've passed that point some time ago.......

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Survival7201

For your thoughtful consideration:

The case was brought by attorney Orly Taitz on February 15, 2013 dealing with Barack Hussein Obama’s "alleged" use of forged IDs; The Supreme Court in an unprecedented move made the hearing a "closed door" session escaping scrutiny from the media and the public. Here is the link to the Supreme Court Docket since so many have written that they needed to see the docket with their own eyes.

Read the "article", look at the "news" source, review the docket and you'll see the typical litany of so-called "birther" sludge (a dash of truth mixed with a heavy dose of cherry-picked half-truths, tin foil wrapped innuendo, and logical fallacy) that's been spewing forth and contaminating the blogosphere for nearly a decade now.

If anyone knows how the SCOTUS works, there was no "unprecedented move" - it was merely a normal distribution of the case among the Justices to review and discuss among themselves in one of their two weekly "conferences" (Wed and Fri) prior to accepting or rejecting it as with all cases.

http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalR...rocedures.aspx

What tripe.

Richard

[SF18C]

Obama's not worried...with Biden as the VP!!!

[MR2]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

It's immaterial at this point. I do not believe that SCOTUS would find against Obama regardless of what the facts show. The international damage to the US image and ability to project democracy would be irrevocably damaged if he were found to be ineligible for the presidency. Any finding that we put someone in office that was ineligible, let alone reelected them, would result in the US becoming the laughingstock of the world. The best course of action for the long term benefit of the US is to let it ride for the next 4 years and block any attempts at a third term.

This same thing was said by one side during the Clinton impeachment and the other during the Nixon impeachment.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by MR2

This same thing was said by one side during the Clinton impeachment and the other during the Nixon impeachment.

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

[SF18C]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

Do you stay up all night and play "What if?" with yourself???

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by SF18C

Do you stay up all night and play "What if?" with yourself???

Pretty much That and read posts here...

[Detonics]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

The difference being that both of those were accused of illegal activities while in office. In this case you are not talking about impeachment, it would be closer to voiding the election.

Has anyone thought about the ramifications if the SCOTUS was to find the election illegal? Biden becomes President (scary enough on its own), Romney sues for the presidencyon the basis that he had the highest number of votes of all eligible candidates. Democrats sue for a new election if Romney wins his suit and they put Hillary up as the candidate... chaos ensues... If Romney wins, he invalidates Obamacare and many other initiatives that Obama put in place or was laying the groundwork for. The entire government has to pivot... Our government has a hard time walking a straight line, how in the world are they going to take a sudden right angle turn? Those are just a small portion of the domestic ramifications. What happens when the government is effectively frozen waiting for the outcome? What happens to the guys and gals in Afghanistan? What happens to our standing with other countries?

Indeed. It is far better that we follow the Chicago model of "expediency" in politics by letting a person who would, at that point, be shown to not have been eligible for the highest office of the United States. remain in his position of benevolent leadership.

Obviously without that leadership and steadfast support the United States military would immediately fail and spin apart like a high speed grinding wheel shattering.

As far as our standing with other countries, I suppose it could, in the gravest extreme, lead to other world powers such as Nauru and Andorra failing to respond to phone calls from Secretary of State Kerry like Russia has.

But really.... We did that whole thing with the Clinton impeachment. "Oh, but then we'll get Gore! Lets just ignore our oath of office!" Which led to a perjurious bastard being able to return to public life and eventually take the campaign stage and quip about Romney, "Who wants a president who will knowingly lie to you?"

It lead to his wife who, while questioned before Congress gave variations of the answer "I have no recollection of those events" a few hundred times, being elected a Senator and Secretary of State and a possible candidate for future leadership of our country.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Detonics

Indeed. It is far better that we follow the Chicago model of "expediency" in politics by letting a person who would, at that point, be shown to not have been eligible for the highest office of the United States. remain in his position of benevolent leadership.

Obviously without that leadership and steadfast support the United States military would immediately fail and spin apart like a high speed grinding wheel shattering.

As far as our standing with other countries, I suppose it could, in the gravest extreme, lead to other world powers such as Nauru and Andorra failing to respond to phone calls from Secretary of State Kerry like Russia has.

But really.... We did that whole thing with the Clinton impeachment. "Oh, but then we'll get Gore! Lets just ignore our oath of office!" Which led to a perjurious bastard being able to return to public life and eventually take the campaign stage and quip about Romney, "Who wants a president who will knowingly lie to you?"

It lead to his wife who, while questioned before Congress gave variations of the answer "I have no recollection of those events" a few hundred times, being elected a Senator and Secretary of State and a possible candidate for future leadership of our country.

OK, so I read that as almost all in pink. I guess I should clarify my position. Personally, I would want him held accountable, even if it meant there was a mess to clean up afterwards. The invalidation of his presidency would destroy the democratic party for a long time and push us back into the conservative realm. No democratic (or Republican) candidate would be able to survive the scrutiny that would be the outcome if the presidency was voided, especially this President.

My points above are that I do not believe that the current SCOTUS justices will publically proclaim the invalidation. They will, instead, discuss in closed chambers and find a legal technicality to avoid hearing the case to avoid just these issues.

The other post (the one you quoted) is, as SF18C said, me playing what-if and attempting to provoke thought about the possible outcomes. Sometimes the devil you know is preferable to the one you don't.