Supreme Court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Range Rover, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_birthers


    High court turns away appeal from 'birther' leader

    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the challenge to President Barack Obama's citizenship.

    The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

    The suit was filed on behalf of Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, who sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States and thus, is ineligible to be president and commander in chief.
     
  2. da-net

    da-net

    This is neither good or bad for "the birthers" or obama.

    I believe that the main reason the supreme court refused to hear the case is..."If needed, How do you undo everything obama has done while in office?"...it is simply not possible!

    This refusing to hear the case is part of a precedent being established where judges are refusing to do the jobs they were hired to do and swore an oath to do. Just like in this failure to rule in the case of "Judge [bates] Declines to Rule on Targeted Killings of U.S. Citizens.

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53811

    This is the wrong messages being sent by the judicial branch of our government. This lack of ruling by bates basically gives obama the ultimate ability in spousal abuse if he chooses to exercise it. What would stop obama if he chose to do it? Nothing!

    i would think that if taitz is good enough to present a case in front of the supreme court, then she would be good enough to get people motivated enough to file "mandamus petitions" with the court.
     
  3. Ricter

    Ricter

    Your complex explanation is a satisfying substitute for the simpler, "common sense" explanation most folks would accept.
     
  4. I think the judges and courts did their job.The first federal court found her to be a nut and her case frivolous and The Supreme Court agreed


    Other birther cases have had similar results(see below).I think the Supreme Court has thrown out around 5 birther cases


    Hollister v. Soetoro

    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". 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