DescentBB

It would seem the question of Obama's birth is once again being reborn and slapped into life by none other than SCOTUS:

"In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate. "

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897

In reading thru the article I see both of Obama's nominee's are being asked to recuse themselves. If they do, you now have a conference panel that would be 4 conservative to 2 liberal justices. Now I know we have discussed this before and some of you have pooh poohed the idea of Obama not being a natural born citizen. The problem for you is there is apparently enough evidence against Obama's being born on US soil that SCOTUS is even having a conference on the matter.

What really gets interesting are the ramifications if Obama is found to be ineligible. All the bills he has signed are now null and void. The 2 justices he has picked would be history. And perhaps worst of all we would have Joe "The Joker" Biden as el Presidente. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Supreme Court docket

Full text of the motion (scribd)

there is apparently enough evidence against Obama's being born on US soil that SCOTUS is even having a conference on the matter.

The legal term "distributed for conference" essentially means the justices have been given copies of the brief so that they can do whatever research they need to do before they meet to decide whether the case has merit. It doesn't mean they'll actually hear the case, it just means they all have copies of the necessary information in their hands.

This case was "distributed for conference" 11 times before the court provided a ruling. This case was "distributed for conference" and then denied. This seems to be typical -- the petition and relevant responses are filed, the case is distributed for conference, and then the court decides whether or not to hear the case. So do not make the mistake of thinking that a case being "distributed for conference" signifies any merit whatsoever.

In the case in question, the court has received all of the documents, denied the case once already, received a petition for rehearing, and scheduled a discussion as to whether they'll rehear the case.

Don't get me wrong; if this actually goes to hearings, and if it actually goes through, it's of incredible significance -- but "distributed for conference" is a long, long way from there.

This is a bit confusing. Distributed for conference implies a list that justices will pick from. Scheduling a conferesnce implies they have picked the Obama case and will now decide whether it will be kicked up to the discuss level. From there I think the Chief Justice makes a discuss list but what that implies is a bit beyond me. Any clarification would be appreciated.

woodchip wrote:Distributed for conference implies a list that justices will pick from

Sort of. What "distributed for conference" means is that all of the paperwork is in place and everyone has a copy, and it's been placed on the list of cases that will then be selected from on such-and-such date. That's as far as this case has been done (in its re-submission; note that it previously made it to that stage and was declined.) Once the conference date actually comes up, the case can be selected for further review, declined, or kicked down the road to the next conference.

So the case in question is in the "we have all the paperwork and we'll look at it in March" stage. Despite what WND would have you believe, this does NOT mean the Supreme Court has declared the case to have merit or to be worth visiting in depth, it just means they have the paperwork in hand.

I understood that the merits of the case are yet to be determined. I think somewhere i read something like 7000 cases are presented for conference and only a small percentage are accepted into conference. If so then I think this is what WND was pointing out as "stunning". Then I have to wonder at how the recusing of Obama's 2 justices will affect the decision making process. Any thoughts?

My thought is that some people have way too much time on their hands if they're able to keep pursuing this stupidity.

woodchip wrote:I understood that the merits of the case are yet to be determined. I think somewhere i read something like 7000 cases are presented for conference and only a small percentage are accepted into conference.

Everything that's properly submitted to the court gets "distributed for conference" (this guy I found on google seems to agree), which just means that the paperwork gets handed out to the justices. Once the conference starts, they can choose to:

(1) reschedule it for another conference -- meaning, essentially, they didn't get around to discussing it.
(2) dismiss it -- meaning, zero justices thought it was worth hearing or even getting more information on. This happens to roughly 70% of cases.
(3) call for a response -- meaning, at least one justice had some interest in possibly hearing it. This happens to about 30% of cases; 29% are later declined.
(4) accept the case for review -- meaning 4 justices voted to definitely hear it. This happens to about 1% of cases. (Of about 7000 cases submitted in 2000, they heard arguments for 83 and decided 74.)

This "birther" case, last time it came to the SCOTUS, was dismissed. Meaning, not a single justice thought it was worth hearing or even getting more information on; they simply let the lower court's ruling stand without comment (the lower court dismissed the suit.) It's been resubmitted, but it seems likely that the same thing will happen again. Even if two justices recused themselves, it still requires 4 votes to accept the case for review, and this one has zero.

The suit looks like it's going nowhere. Being "distributed for conference" still means it's going nowhere. If it gets a call for a response, then it might at least be worth taking a look at, and if it gets accepted for review, then it's serious business -- but "distributed for conference" is nothing.

Frankly my dear, it most likely is a non-event.

As a aside, is their a website that would show the status of the conference petitions?

Nothing will happen with this- but if individual states pass some kind of birth certificate requirement for a presidential candidate to appear on the ballot, things will get interesting.

woodchip wrote:As a aside, is their a website that would show the status of the conference petitions?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 10-678.htm , as linked above, shows the current status of that petition. After the conference, it will be updated accordingly.

What an epic waste of time.

ThunderBunny wrote:Nothing will happen with this- but if individual states pass some kind of birth certificate requirement for a presidential candidate to appear on the ballot, things will get interesting.

I have a feeling that such a thing would ultimately be what is called an empty gesture, and ultimately just a way to say, "the Great State of _______ does not approve of Obama."

How many of you that think the case is a waste of time don't care if he was born in the U.S.? Would you want the courts and laws be ignored in the matter if he ends up being proven to have been born outside the U.S. and demand he be allowed to run for re-election?

How many of you would have had that same reaction if the same situation was discovered about G.W. Bush back in 2003?

Will Robinson wrote:How many of you that think the case is a waste of time don't care if he was born in the U.S.? Would you want the courts and laws be ignored in the matter if he ends up being proven to have been born outside the U.S. and demand he be allowed to run for re-election?

His certification of live birth is available on Google Image Search.

Will Robinson wrote:How many of you would have had that same reaction if the same situation was discovered about G.W. Bush back in 2003?

How many who are so concerned about Barack Obama's place of birth would have the same level of concern if John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone, was elected?

Will Robinson wrote:Would you want the courts and laws be ignored in the matter

Nope.

I don't want the courts and laws to be ignored in the matter, which is why I took the time to, you know, look up what the court is actually doing on this case. The courts have consistently agreed that there is nothing to this, consistently dismissed the case, and the SCOTUS hasn't shown any interest in pursuing the matter further. So why do certain people continue to ignore the courts' actual actions in favor of fiction that says "distributed for conference" is a big deal?

I didn't mean to imply that there is or isn't just cause to pursue it.
I don't know if there is and if the court wont look into it then I'm cool with that as a final word.
I said early on in the whole debate that there is no way we are going to kick the first black president out of the 'White' House on a technicality...and no one in power with a brain wants that as their contribution to the public discourse.

I'm not interested in what happens to him...it is the people who turn a blind eye to the rules out of political expediency that I'm always eager to be poking at.

I remember a lot of people like TC saying back when the story first came up that this was nothing, like she does now, but that was before anything was known, before any court weighed in, before what little evidence that has been begrudgingly produced surfaced.... She, and the others, took their position based on ideology not the law. So I have to take their self righteous proclamations for what they are...shallow.

As for McCain, I don't know of there ever being anyone saying he was born anywhere other than where he says he was, unlike Obama's situation, and I believe it was established that the offspring of a military member born over seas has the right to claim U.S. citizenship. I have friends born to military parents in Germany and they had to decide by age 18 or 16, don't remember exactly, which country they were going to claim as their home country. So it isn't really the same thing at all.
For the record I think if you don't qualify you don't qualify and shouldn't be elected. I didn't vote for McCain and only voted for Obama in the primary not the general so I think I'm as unbiased as I can be on how I am willing to apply the law to either candidate. And if Nader or Badnarik had been born on the outside I would be saying the same thing since they took my last two votes.

If it turns out that Obama wasn't born here, a possibility that I think exists, then he shouldn't be allowed to run for re-election. I don't think either of the two big parties want that info to surface if it exists so it probably never will.
I think everyone should find more value in supporting the law than supporting a politician or party no matter how much it hurts them and of course that isn't the way we are anymore and that is a very sad symptom of the cancer that is turning us into a mere blip on the timeline of nations and societies.

I don't have to drink the "birther" kool-aid to hold my view and won't abandon it out of fear of being grouped with them.

It's still a waste of time. He's been in office over 2 years now, so half his present term is over. He isn't going to get anything done with the intransigent Republicans in the House either. In a few years, all of those that don't like him can vote him out. I would vote against him in 2012 if the Republicans, or even the Democrats put up a better candidate than the crazies floating around the pool now. Obama's just been a corporate shill and a big disappointment.

Hawaii cannot release his official birth certificate legally, unless privacy laws can be changed. I suppose SCOTUS has the authority though, but why bother? We'd just get Biden for a while wouldn't we?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_ ... ertificate