Yeah,thats what happened
What deal was made to rule against all the birther cases presented to the court?
Whats all this BS that judges arent political?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
Yeah,thats what happened
What deal was made to rule against all the birther cases presented to the court?
Your IQ is even lower than I thought.
The Supreme Court never did rule on whether he was and Natural Born Citizen or whether he was born here... lying moron.
The only time Obama was ordered by a court to present evidence his attorneys ceased appearing and he defaulted. That is not birtherism. That is fact. Look up the case. It was discussed here many times.
And, asswipe that does not mean I argue Obama was not a legitimate President. So stop lying about that.
Obama was our President and his presidency will not be invalidated. I don't even think there would be a mechanism for such a challenge.
The only time Obama was ordered by a court to present evidence his attorneys ceased appearing and he defaulted. That is not birtherism. That is fact. Look up the case. It was discussed here many times.
And, asswipe that does not mean I argue Obama was not a legitimate President. So stop lying about that.
Obama was our President and his presidency will not be invalidated. I don't even think there would be a mechanism for such a challenge.
Yeah,thats what happened
What deal was made to rule against all the birther cases presented to the court?
Last edited:
Its really amazing how these left wingers get smoked then cant do anything but insult.
The democrats give their marching orders to these judges and they don't defect. We know that they are never in play becasue they based on politics, not law.
Yes they did moron racist birther jem,many in fact.
Bypassing the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Berg filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the United States Supreme Court. On December 10, 2008, the Supreme Court denied Berg's request for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College, scheduled for December 15.[17] On December 15, 2008, the petitioner refiled the application for injunction.[18] Two days later, Berg's appeal was denied without comment by Supreme Court JusticeAnthony Kennedy.[14] Berg's previously denied request for an injunction was refiled with Justice Antonin Scalia on December 18, 2008.[18] On January 12, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. The application for stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court was also summarily denied on January 21, 2009.[18]
Kerchner v. ObamaEdit
On January 20, 2009, Attorney Mario Apuzzo filed a lawsuit in federal court, on behalf of Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs, suing President-Elect Barack Obama, the United States Congress, Dick Cheney, and Nancy Pelosi alleging Obama was ineligible to be president, and that Congress failed to verify Obama's eligibility.[22] A federal district court in New Jersey dismissed the suit, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing. On July 3, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, citing Berg v. Obama, affirmed the dismissal, and ordered Apuzzo to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for initiating a frivolous appeal.[23] Apuzzo's subsequent request for a hearing was denied, but the order to show cause was discharged.[24][25] On November 29, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[26]
Barnett v. Obama
Edit
On January 20, 2009, Orly Taitz filed a lawsuit in federal court, Alan Keyes et al v. Barack H. Obama et al against Obama, with Wiley Drakeas one of the named parties for the plaintiff.[27] On July 13, 2009, the presiding judge dismissed the case without prejudice on technical grounds,[28] and on July 14, 2009, Taitz refiled a "First Amended Complaint" Captain Pamela Barnett v. Barack Hussein Obama[29] on behalf of Alan Keyes, Wiley Drake, Cynthia Davis, Gail Lightfoot, several other local politicians, and various armed service members. Taitz sought a declaratory judgment that Obama is ineligible for office and an injunction to void his actions and appointments as President.[30]
Two of the plaintiffs, Markham Robinson and Drake, subsequently attempted to dismiss their attorney, Orly Taitz, who refused to sign their substitution-of-attorney documents and instead filed to dismiss the two of them as plaintiffs in the case. On September 8, 2009, Judge David O. Carter denied the dismissal of Drake and Robinson as plaintiffs, and granted their motion to substitute Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation as counsel for them, refused to dismiss Magistrate Judge Arthur Nakazato from the case, and set a tentative trial date for January 26, 2010.[31]
At a hearing on October 5, 2009, Carter considered the defendants' Motion to Dismiss and declined to rule from the bench, saying that he would take the matter under advisement.[32] On October 7, 2009, he released a Minute Order finalizing the previously tentative dates for summary judgment motions and trial,[33] and on October 29, 2009, he dismissed the case.[34] On December 22, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, ruling the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the eligibility of the sitting president.[35][36] On June 11, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[37]
Hollister v. SoetoroEdit
On March 5, 2009, a lawsuit filed by Philip Berg on behalf of Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force colonel, against Barack Obama (referenced as "Barry Soetoro", the name given at the time of his enrollment in an Indonesian elementary school). The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer "agents provocateurs" and their local counsel, John Hemenway, "a foot soldier in their crusade." He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint "for an improper purpose such as to harass".[40] The district court ultimately reprimanded Hemenway for his actions, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case and Hemenway's reprimand.[23] On January 18, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[41]
Upon learning of Land's ruling, Taitz said she would appeal the sanction, declaring that Judge Land was "scared to go against the regime" of the "oppressive" Obama administration, and that the sanction was an attempt to "intimidate" her.[60] On March 15, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the sanctions against Taitz.[61] On August 9, 2010, the federal government filed an abstract of judgment, a document placing a lien in the amount of $20,000 plus interest on all her real property,[62] prompting Taitz to say, "I will pay the money, and I will continue fighting."[63] On January 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[64]
Donofrio v. WellsEdit
In October 2008, Leo Donofrio, an attorney from New Jersey, filed suit against Nina Mitchell Wells, the Secretary of State of New Jersey, to challenge the eligibility of Obama, Republican presidential candidate John McCain (see details here) and the Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero.[81]Donofrio asserted that all three candidates were ineligible: Obama due to having dual U.S. and British nationality at birth (the latter via Obama's father), McCain due to being born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Calero due to allegedly still having Nicaraguancitizenship.[82]
Donofrio was not among those who claimed Obama might have been born outside Hawaii.[83] Also, Donofrio did not challenge the fact that Obama is a U.S. citizen and instead challenged only whether Obama is a natural-born citizen.[84]
The case was referred to the Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas. When the case reached the United States Supreme Court on December 8, 2008, the Court declined without comment to hear it.[82]
Keyes v. BowenEdit
On November 14, 2008, Alan Keyes and Markham Robinson, chairman of the American Independent Party and a California candidate for president elector, filed a lawsuit requesting that Obama provide documentation that he is a natural-born citizen of the United States.[89][90][91][92] Keyes also said in an interview that he would not be in favor of amending this requirement of the Constitution.[93] Keyes asserts that statements by Obama's paternal step-grandmother "raise doubts as to whether Barack Obama is in fact a natural born U.S. citizen, eligible to be president."[94][95]
California Superior Court Judge Michael P. Kenny sustained, without leave to amend, Secretary Bowen's and Obama's demurrers on Keyes' petition for writ of mandate and granted Obama's motion to quash the subpoena. Keyes was found not to be entitled to the records he sought, thereby declaring the case moot.[96][97] The California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal on October 25, 2010.[98] The California Supreme Court declined, without comment, to review the case on February 2, 2011.[99] On October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declined, without comment, to hear the case.[100]
Last edited:
You got nothing so you scream racism. Did you think of that yourself, foreigner?
Yet Kagen voted to gut Obamacare and Kagan and Bryer voted against a gay couple.There are more but my point has been made and proof was presented that Democrat judges vote against democrats on some cases although you said they never did.
Again,you are a fucking moron
Wow you are an idiot foreign troll.
And you were already taught this in the past.
Those are not rulings against.
Those are declines to hear.
Declines to hear set no precedent and mean nothing in terms of the merits of the arguments.
And you were already taught this in the past.
Those are not rulings against.
Those are declines to hear.
Declines to hear set no precedent and mean nothing in terms of the merits of the arguments.
Yes,they dont even think you idiot birthers are worth the courts time but thats not ruling against you.Ok racist birther jem