Article

2011-02-18 Home Front: Politix

Supreme Court Schedules Conference on Obama's Constitutional Eligibility

It's WND, so the 48-hour rule is in effect.

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.

Posted by Craigum Thins1530 2011-02-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ] Top

#1 "Oh really?" asked Serrano. "So you haven't answered the one about whether I can serve as president, but you answer this one?"

"We're evading that one," answered Thomas, referring to questions of presidential eligibility and prompting laughter in the chamber. "We're giving you another option."

Am I the only one who fails to see the humour in the Thomas statement?

Posted by Besoeker 2011-02-18 01:08|| 2011-02-18 01:08|| Front Page Top

#2 Am I the only one who fails to see the humour in the Thomas statement?

Am I the only one who would like to see better security for Thomas?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2011-02-18 10:05|| 2011-02-18 10:05|| Front Page Top

#3 All I want to know is this: How did he pay for college? ...Was it parents, grand-parents or scholarship? If scholarship or grant - what kinds? I have heard he got an exchange student or foreign student scholarship at some point. If, that is true, why?

Posted by Broadhead6 2011-02-18 10:13|| 2011-02-18 10:13|| Front Page Top

#4 A paper work problem. Nothing to see here, really.

Elgin told WND that he and others working on the Hollister case "will be moving ahead with plans to petition SCOTUS for reconsideration. The petition will focus heavily on the fact that our recusal motion was never responded to and thus, we will contend, should have been treated as conceded, thus conceding the main point of eligibility."

They'll re-open it to deny the motion so there won't be conspiracy theorists getting off on the motion not having been properly denied.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2011-02-18 10:24|| 2011-02-18 10:24|| Front Page Top

21:10 newc
20:17 SteveS
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS