"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.
The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question."
Friday, February 18, 2011
Obama's Eligibility and the US Supreme Court
If this goes the distance, it will be a very interesting year. The Supreme court will have a second conference regarding Obama's eligibility to be president of the USA. Plus, the two justices appointed by Obama are petitioned to recuse themselves. This is just too much fun. If I were Pres of the USA, I'd show my original documents, wouldn't you? So why won't he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Oh not this again. I thought this was put to rest when BOTH major Honolulu papers released their 1961 printouts showing the announcement of his birth in Honolulu.
Not to mention, he has released his birth certificate.
This is why I hate American politics. Obama is on the "opposing team". All that matters is that the "opposing team" loses.
Same thing happened when Bush was president with that Killian documents nonsense.
No, and the differences between the paper situations are stark.
The Killian documents were forgeries, intended to besmirch Bush. They had no bearing whether Bush was Constitutionally eligible to be president.
Obama has not released the legal documents to show he was born in Hawaii. He's released a short form, which isn't proof of a live birth in Hawaii. All it means is someone in the family requested the form, regardless of where he was actually born.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=254401
The document at FactCheck is not the long form birth certificate.
I have no idea if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, but the matter isn't as clear as some would profess.
Hawaii does not release short form vs long form. They only have one form, and it is only released electronically. They went paperless in 2001: http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606_kokua_line
And there are newspaper printings of his birth announcement from 1961 microfiche, released by BOTH major Honolulu newspapers.
Matin, did you read the WND article?
And I am just going repeat myself "I have no idea if Obama was born in Hawaii or not, but the matter isn't as clear as some would profess."
Post a Comment