chernmax
NOT Politically Correct!!
OK I stand corrected!!!
More on that Birth Certificate thing...
- Thread starter Bann
- Start date
OK I stand corrected!!!
sunmoonstars
New Member
Everyone is wrong.
He was born on an airplane on his way from Africa to Hawaii over international waters. So now..what does that make him?
Stupid huh? Just like this entire thread.
ylexot
Super Genius
I think you're right!I don't think Obama is an American citizen, he's most likely a Vulcan.
I'm prett sure he's been in some star trek episodes....
He and Spok likely have the same mother but different fathers (obviously).
Live long and prosper my friends!
\\//
/
Attachments
ImnoMensa
New Member
Everyone is wrong.
He was born on an airplane on his way from Africa to Hawaii over international waters. So now..what does that make him?
Stupid huh? Just like this entire thread.
Maybe you should stay out of threads you think are stupid.
sunmoonstars
New Member
BlueBird
Well-Known Member
Why yes! I am right!
I couldn't remember for sure though so thank you for posting the picture.
Let this be proof that Barack Obama is indeed a Vulcan just as BlueBird speculated.
To the moderators....
Please end this thread by locking it! Case solved, Obama is a Vulcan not a legal US citizen.
Tilted
..
BlueBird
Well-Known Member
Why can't he be a Vulcan AND a US citizen?
He can be.
But he's not a natural born US citizen.
He's VulcanAmerica.n If the Governator can't be president then neither can the Vulcanator....
Tilted
..
I just noticed that the Federal Election Commission has entered a waiver of the right to respond, which respondents do sometimes. That might expedite the petition being scheduled for conference. November 25th is a conference day, so it's possible the Justices could take up the issue then. If it doesn't make it on the schedule for that day, the next conference isn't until December 5th.
PsyOps
Pixelated
What exactly does this mean?
Tilted
..
After someone files a petition for writ of cert, the court waits at least 30 days to give the respondent time to file an opposition brief arguing to the court why it should not review the case in question. If the respondent files a specific waiver of the right to respond, they are basically telling the court that they don't intend to file a response, even though it is their right to. Once the court receives that, the court no longer has to wait and can distribute the petition to the Justices and schedule the petition to be taken up (possibly) in the next conference. So, it's likely that they will decide to grant the petition or deny it on November 25th. That is a Wednesday, and the conferences are usually held on Fridays. After a Friday conference they don't release their orders or decisions until the following Monday, but it would be my guess that in this case they would release the orders on November 26th.
As to what it means that the respondent chose not to file a response, that's hard to know. It could be that they don't think the court will grant the petition anyway, or it could be that they don't mind if the petition is granted and the case is reviewed. There may be other potential reasons as well.
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
aps45819
24/7 Single Dad
1. What's it say in the black retangle at the bottom of the form?
2. What's the certificate number?
ImnoMensa
New Member
Then it isnt really stupid is it?
For the SCOTUS to hear the matter any earlier than the 30 day time limit wouldn't all of the respondents have to file either an opposition brief or a waiver? As the initial Berg case cited Obama, the DNC, the FEC and Does 1 - 50 wouldn't all of them be given a chance to respond or the time limit expire before the matter is taken up?
Tilted
..
The docket notation says the waiver was filed by the respondents Federal Election Commission, et al which is what is identified as the respondents in the docket. I think it's a fairly safe assumption that the et al indicates that it is on behalf of all the named parties. The FEC isn't the first listed defendant, so I'm not sure what procedure they use to choose which listed party is the identified respondent in the docket record.
Just for giggles I searched a bunch of cases and never found any instance where there are separate opposition briefs or separate waivers filed by respondent parties. In every case where the respondent is listed as 'et al', the only opposition brief or waiver was listed the same way. There are certainly instances where another party files an Amicus Curiae brief, but not any where respondents file separately. I obviously can't be sure, but I'd be very surprised if the waiver filed isn't inclusive of all respondent parties.
What I did find is that a good many petitions don't get scheduled for the first available conference after a waiver is filed or after the window for opposition briefs closes. Some do, but some don't. I can only guess that other considerations, such as case load, affect the scheduling. As I said in an earlier post, it's possible the matter won't be considered until the next conference on December 5th, or even later. The rules of SCOTUS say that the clerk will distribute the petition to the court for its consideration upon receiving a waiver of the right to file an opposition brief. They don't say that it has to be scheduled for conference in a particular time period.
One other thing, if the respondent filed an opposition brief, that would likely push consideration of the petition back further, since SCOTUS rules say that the petition doesn't get distributed for consideration for at least 10 days after the opposition brief is filed. The petitioner may file a reply brief (reply to the opposition brief) during that time, should they choose. If the respondents hadn't filed a waiver and waited until December 1st to file an opposition brief, the first conference in which it could ordinarily be considered would be January 9th. So, if the respondents had wanted to delay this process somewhat, they could have. It's hard to be sure what it means that they seem not to have.
Last edited:
ImnoMensa
New Member
U.S. Politics - Topics - HOLY BUCKETS. SCOTUS WILL HEAR OBAMA CITIZENSHIP CASE.
What happened to Berg's case and Allan Keyes case?
Has this one been picked for a reason?
What happened to Berg's case and Allan Keyes case?
Has this one been picked for a reason?
Tilted
..
Berg's case is still waiting to be scheduled for conference and Keyes hasn't made any petitions or applications to SCOTUS yet, as far as I know.
It's not really that this one has been 'picked'. It's just that the application has been scheduled for conference sooner than Berg's petition has been. Berg made a petition which had to wait for a certain time period to elapse before being scheduled for conference, per the procedures for a petition for writ of cert. Donofrio made an application, which is procedurally handled differently. This application isn't asking SCOTUS to review the case, it's asking SCOTUS to grant a stay (most likely to enjoin the NJ SOS from certifying the electors) until they can review the case. Because it is an application and not a petition for writ of cert, it can be acted upon quicker. Donofrio had this application denied by Justice Souter (who would have been the appropriate Justice for cases arising in that particular Federal court district); but he decided to try his luck with Justice Thomas, and seems to have found a more sympathetic ear.
I'm curious as to why Thomas is referring the case to conference though, since he could have just decided to grant the stay or not grant it himself. Maybe he intends them to consider the question of granting a writ of cert (i.e. deciding to review the case on its merits) at that conference also. Or maybe they just have a policy to refer 'appealed' applications to conference out of respect for the other Justice. It could also be that the refiled application includes some request to expedite consideration of a writ of cert, and Justice Thomas has effectively granted that application by distributing it for conference. Who knows?
So, the answer to the question is that they haven't really picked this case over any others, it's just that the nature of this motion is different and thus it fell under different procedural guidelines and made it to conference quicker. Nonetheless it is an interesting development. The fact that Justice Thomas distributed this for conference should give at least a little hope to the applicant that SCOTUS may hear the case in general. I would think he would have just denied the application, as Justice Souter had already done, if he didn't think it possible that they would agree in conference to hear the case.
Also, the implication in the title of that article is a tad bit misleading. SCOTUS hasn't agreed to 'hear' the case within the conventional meaning of that term. They still have to decide whether or not to 'hear' the case on its merits, and that is the process they are in now - that generally happens in conference.
Edit: Of course, all of this is assuming that this case actually pertains to Obama's qualification for Presidency as is indicated in that article. There is nothing in the SCOTUS docket that indicates that and I have not read any of the original case to know for sure. It probably is what they say it is, but you can never be sure with articles on the internet.
Last edited: