Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:13 AM
Original message
Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
Source: AP / HuffingtonPost.com

The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth _ his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject _ he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.

At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and the Hawaii secretary of state has confirmed. Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20081208/scotu... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
1. Donofrio got his a$$ kicked--good
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newsjock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Clarence Thomas got his a$$ kicked, too
Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #3
14. Hate to say something not nasty about Thomas
but he didn't do anything wrong with this case. Putting it to the court for this just got it out of the way so the loser wouldn't keep handing it to other justices. His sending it to the whole court just got it punted faster and it's routine procedure.

C. Thomas is still a major asshole with a tiny intellect and I think he should be impeached, disbarred and laughed at but he didn't do anything out of the ordinary here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #14
37. Thomas did NOT do it for that reason. In fact he went against other justices
in even considering this

The lower courts have already thrown this out because it has no relevence, and other Supreme Court justices already knew that

Thomas wanted bring this up, not because of its validity, but to perpetrate doubt


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. Oh come on
that's just not right. The court did not consider this, plain and simple. They denied cert along with hundreds of other whacko cases, it's simply routine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesibria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #14
70. I agree - Thomas followed rather standard procedure
I did a browse through several months of the SCOTUS docket - and in every single situation I found where an application was denied by the first judge and submitted to a second judge - the second judge referred the application to the court; court added it to conference.

Also read that this was standard procedure in several articles (will try to find the links for anyone interested).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #14
77. Impeached, Disbarred and Laughedat sounds like the PERFECT name for
the consulting firm that all the disgraced GOPers should form. Though I guess they'd really have to substitute "Convicted" for "Impeached" since impeachment less common than sightings of Sasquatch these days.

Yeah, I can see the letterhead now...

Convicted, Disbarred & Laughedat
Scoffs At Law


PARTNERS
The Dishonorable Tom Delay
The Wretched Jack Ambramoff
The Miserable Scooter Libby
The Pathetic Bob Ney
The Clueless Alberto Gonzales
The Hypocritical Larry Craig
The Undead Kennyboy Lay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
63. as has been explained a number of times, Thomas didn't get his "ass kicked"
He followed standard court protocol by refusing to act on the petition it was presented to him after being deniede by Souter and instead referring it to the full court for disposition. If he had granted the petition (reversing Souter) and then the entire court reversed him, then his ass would've been kicked. But that didn't happen and there is no indication what his views were on whether the petition should've been granted other than the fact that when he had the chance to grant it, he didn't.

He's the worst justice in history, but this time he actually did exactly what any justice would have done in the circumstances (the circumstances being that he was the second justice to be asked to rule).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
84. But C-Tom was our last hope
He must be in on it, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veritas_et_Aequitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. (Supreme)Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve(Donofrio case)
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 09:14 AM by maddezmom
Source: AP

WASHINGTON The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth.

The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election. Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.

Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081208/ap_on_go_su_co/scot... ;_ylt=AtWB3XrY0qTmjD4UlhHGDYhMEP0E
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. oh my, I hear exploding heads.
from those who want to thwart this presidency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Quick -- someone hide Brit Hume's dog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I had no idea this was being argued at the supreme court level?
I did see a you tube video showing an explaination from an attorney arguing the birth certificate issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. When it is a GOPer hot topic item, they get access to the courts
Even some GOPer guy whining that he took a look at an online birth certificate and in his mind believes that certificate is fake gets Supreme Court attention.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharp_stick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. It wasn't argued
it was submitted and rejected as are almost all crazy cases submitted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. Even if it was not argued to the SCOTUS, it was argued in at least two lower courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #32
68. actually, that's not exactly true either
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 11:22 AM by onenote
In both the berg and donofrio cases, the lower courts did not consider the merits of the claim. Rather they threw the cases out because the plaintiffs didn't have the legal standing to bring the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesibria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #68
71. Donofrio *not* thrown out for lack of standing
Just as FYI, Donofrio was not thrown out of lower NJ courts for lack of standing. The courts didn't address that issue. They denied his stay application "on the merits" - i.e., rejecting his claim that SOS failed to comply with state law, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Princess Turandot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. The case itself was not submitted to be argued in SCOTUS on the facts..
The plaintiff wanted the court to review his ability to sue on this matter in a lower court, from which it had already been tossed, *I think* because he had no standing. Had they agreed to hear his emergency appeal and then agreed with him, it would have sent the case back to a lower court for it to be tried on the facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. I must say, I'm pleasantly surprised
Since the SC has a past history of deciding who should be president.

:mad:

I guess this case was beyond the pale, even for them.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northernlights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
51. maybe I'm overly optimistic...
but I like to hope that maybe they learned that they're not real good at picking presidents....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #51
95. Brawawawawaa
bush a little too much even for their extreme agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Damn! I wanted a reason to push for the impeachment of Clarence Thomas.
Oh, well. The court stays right-wing for the next few decades.

Thanks, Ralph.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
57. You think an impeachment of Clarence Thomas is what's needed to drag the court left?
Some of those justices are pretty damn old. Obama has the helm for at least 4 years and likely 8 years. He'll be appointing a few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #57
60. The court will stay the same balance for Obama's eight years.
Obama will replace several left leaners with more left leaners.

The majority right wingers will be there long after Obama is gone.

Hope for well timed Democrats after 2016.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
66. it would've taken five justices to get the case heard
Thomas did nothing different than any other justice would've done, under standard SCOTUS procedure, when presented with an emergency petition that had been turned down by another Justice. When that happens, the protocal is for the second justice receiving the petition to neither grant nor deny it, but rather to refer it to the full court for disposition.

Thomas is a useless waste on the court, but he didn't do anything wrong this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. Can they get any more whacky? What's next?! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
12. Bwahahahahahahaha! Wonder who Clarence is gonna blame
for this. It surely couldn't be that he's a hack, could it?

He doesn't belong on the SCOTUS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Slappy will blame who he's always blamed
The racists who are trying to keep him down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FailureToCommunicate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #13
56. "Clarence the Clown, don't mess around, even tho The Man, try to put him
Down. (Ah, the old songs are the best)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
16. This should bring 'em out of the woodwork.
We need strict constructionist judges!!!! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
17. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 09:34 AM by SemperEadem
Oh what was that their boy limpnutz said to Dems and Progressives when Bush v Gore back landed in 2000? Yeah, that little thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
18. As a critic of Obama and ALL politicians, I say this is good news.
It was really an asinine thing anyway, no wonder they threw it out. It would have made the Justices look more like clowns than they already do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
santamargarita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
19. Stick that up your right-wing ass!
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Botany Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
20. Supreme Court is filled w/ liberals .... Freeper Talk
To: dman4384
Something to hide? Yep, not a doubt in my mind.

But, more importantly, the US Constitution has been dealt another blow by the Liberals.

I fear for the future of this grand experiment.


12 posted on 12/08/2008 7:19:41 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #20
26. Oh, NOW a constitution exists?
Didn't exist in 2000 and we had to just shut up and get over it.

Will that be one shot or two shots of your owm medicine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyJersey Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #20
43. Even most Freepers saw through this
This birth certificate thing has really shown the true nutjobs. There's a guy in my office who swears Obama was born in Kenya. At least this case didn't try to say that - it was claiming that because his father was a British citizen, he could not have been a natural born citizen. At least that's based on fact, even if there's no legal argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #43
90. This was all about xenophobia and racism.
The people who are freaked at the thought of a president with a *foreign-born father* are the only ones taking this seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DirtyJersey Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #90
94. Absolutely
There's absolutely no reason to think he was born in Kenya, other than he has dark skin and a funny name. They claim they want to uphold the Constitution - even putting aside the many ways Republicans have shat all over the Constitution, I don't remember them asking Kerry, Gore, or Clinton to "prove" they were born here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unpossibles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
22. Awesome. Sadly, of course, this won't stop freepers from believing in this BS
Any more than the easily and often debunked Clinton "body count" stopped - they still believe that crap too. In fact, now they'll just say ZOMG CONSPIRASY!!!1!LIBRAL ACTAVIST JUDJES!!1! and keep on keepin on being complete dumbasses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlbertCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
30. C'mon!
They don't like art or music or liturature....that's not for 14 year old boys....they hate everybody who is not just like them....which is no one.

Without these crazy conspiracies....they have no reason to live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SemperEadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
23. well, the Berg case is just as dead
the court is basically saying that the birth requirement was sufficient enough for them to not consider the British angle from his father to have enough legal merit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesibria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
72. Court said NOTHING about it
... as you will be able to tell from my website linked below, I think that the cases challenging Obama's eligiblity are bogus.

HOWEVER, facts DO matter. SCOTUS said NOTHING about the merits of Donofrio's case. So it is wrong to day taht the coutt is basically saying ... anything.

We don't - and won't - know the specific reasons for the denial of his application.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sledgehammer Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
24. Really Leo?
Really? I mean you seriously took a case to the Supreme Court on that basis? You should be barred from employment, voting, parenthood, and anything else that requires the use of a brain. Can't believe I live just a few miles from this total idiot!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
25. What a waste of the Court's time!!
This country is going to hell with this economic crisis and these idiots have nothing better to contribute to their country than this?? Why do they hate America so much?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scytherius Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
27. Well, no surprise. Freepers will believe anything. nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
28. When is the Berg case up before the Supremes?
How long before that gets dismissed heard?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesibria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #28
74. Berg's SCOTUS writ will probably be scheduled for conference
in the next week, as FEC et al waived right to file responding briefs on Dec. 1.

Berg's THIRD CIRCUIT emergency stay will be heard, likely, sometime around Christmas. (DNC/Obama/FEC briefs are due Dec. 19th).

It is unknown/unclear when Berg's THIRD CIRCUIT appeal (the actual appeal, vs. his various emergency motions) will be heard. Briefing schedule has not yet been set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. Is there a point at which they have to stop bringing these nuisance cases?
I already see them saying "this wasn't the real case, the Berg case is the real case". Then when that gets thrown out, it'll be "ah, but wait for the Keyes case". Could they just keep on doing this for the next 4-8 years in order to create lingering doubts about President Obama's legitimacy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
29. Be interesting to know what the vote was if there was a vote
My mind has a vision of nine people sitting around a table laughing their collective asses off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesibria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #29
73. vote was unanimous in denying Donofrio's application
when there is a dissent, you see it with the order. See, e.g., http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/courtorders... - at around page 8 or 9, where you can see that Stevens dissented from two orders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
31. in related news... freepers across the country have been simlutaneously spontaneously combusting.


goes largely unnoticed due to the majority of them being in their mother's basements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. At least their mothers will get some cheap heating for the winter
to make up for having put up with the Freepers for all these years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #35
40. WORD
there's enough hot air in those gasbags for the whole winter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #31
38. The PUMAs seem to love this issue even more than do the Freepers. I hope ALL
their heads are exploding, all over the country, like popcorn kernels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Soylent Brice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. in that case pass the popcorn
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #38
55. The PUMAS???
Is there some kind of a link you can give us to blame this on Hillary?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yukari Yakumo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #55
58. More like the remaining "PUMA"s
The ones who were never really for Hillary anyway. The so-called PUMAs now comprise of nothing more than Freepers and racists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #55
65. The PUMA movement was never about supporting Hillary
It was about opposing Obama. All PUMA founders have been outed as McCain and GOP people. Attacking and exposing PUMA has nothing to do with Sen. Clinton or the noble service she does for our party and country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatGund Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #55
83. Well, you can start over at the blog "TexasDarlin"
Note, I'm not blaming Hillary on this. But a large part of the birth certificate insanity started and/or helped by people in the PUMAsphere,

Much of Berg's lawsuit, for example, are based on writings of one of "TexasDarlin's" writers, somome who goes by the name "Judah Benjamin", after the Confederate Secretary of State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #38
91. As far as I can tell, all the PUMAs are racists, so it makes sense that this would involve them.
This is all about those folks who can't endure the thought of an African American president or a president with a foreign-born father. They simply can't wrap their heads around it - they can't stand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
33. knr. Put it to bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomTan Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
34. I'm sure all these freepers were equally up in arms about the Brooks Brothers riot in 2000.
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 10:10 AM by AtomTan
They just want true democracy for all? Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
36. Alan Keyes still has a case going in California too
The :tinfoilhat: wearers are trying and flailing to the bitter end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #36
39. keyes is mentally ill, and the only people that agree with him are also mentally ill /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
42. Haha. Leo (The Vowel) Donofrio gets his ass kicked.
Now get back in the kitchen and sling some spaghetti. The customers are getting hungry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pjt7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #42
45. last laugh
STFU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #42
46. Sayyyyyyyyyy, youse ain't wit the mob, is ya?
:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
47. Well that's that. I guess the freepers will come to their senses now
and drop this insanity. :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #47
48. Senses? They don't have no stinkin' senses!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #47
81. What senses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dukkha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
49. a baseless waste of time for SCOTUS
get lost Donofrio. I believe some Wal Mart shoppers need greeted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
50. There goes their Maginot Line
WWII referance, anyone?

Buehler?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:42 AM
Response to Original message
52. My favorite part of the H-Post article:
"...Allegations raised on the Internet say the birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is a fake.

But state officials in Hawaii say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.

The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.

In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Anarcho-Socialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
53. the crazy conspiracy theory will live on in the heads of the right-wing nutjobs
alongside the "Bill and Hill did the Oklahoma City bombing and killed Vince Foster" theories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happygoluckytoyou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
54. man..myth...legend... Thought he was born in a log cabin... or was it a manger... GOP SINKING ! ! !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. You didn't see the video?
According to no less an authority than Barack himself, "Contrary to rumor, I wasn't born in a manger. I was born on Krypton, and was sent to Earth by my father, Jor-El, to save the planet."

You've gotta watch more TV.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
graywarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
59. Wish I coulda been there when he got the news.
How stupid can you possibly be? I mean HOW FUCKING STUPID AN YOU POSSIBLY BE?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NBachers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #59
86. Maybe he's at some skidrow bar right now tossing back shots
of cheap rotgut and pisswater beer.

One Bourbon, One Scotch, and One Beer . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
61. Great --!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
62. Weren't all the Founding Fathers British subjects at birth?
Didn't some of them go on to become President?

Case closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #62
69. No, that particular argument doesn't fly
The eligibility clause includes anyone who was a U.S. citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, a provision that's no longer of any relevance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stubtoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
64. Suck it up and get over it, Donofrio. What a sore loser!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
75. 'GET OVER IT'
Isn't that what we heard in 2000?

They are too funny. Poor delusional morans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humbled_opinion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
78. Whats Next?
Obama is the Son of Malcolm X?

LOL I heard that one too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #78
92. I've actually heard that one, too. As if it would be a BAD thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kmdemqueen Donating Member (226 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
79. Are they Nuts
What a bunch of Crazy people there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
80. Duh-nofrio must have gotten confused by the Hawai'i flag


Anyone born under that must be a British subject, right? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muntrv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
82. Oh Leo! McDonald's called! They have a mountain of Big Macs
for you to serve!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
85. We haven't heard the end of this! They'll appeal to Kenya's High Court!
If that doesn't work, they'll head to the World Court! And if they lose there, they'll set the matter before the Judiciary Council of the United Federation of Planets! We're gonna hear more about this issue: count on it

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #85
89. Now they're threatening to boycott Hawaii
Cancel your vacation! Don't buy macadamia nuts! Burn your Don Ho CDs! Hawaii must be punished for, um, something.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145030/posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. Freepers would be terrified to go to Hawaii. Too exotic.
They prefer ten days at Myrtle Beach. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
87. How wacked WAS this suit? So wacked that even MICHELLE MALKIN said it was just a buncha shit.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/12/05/truthers-to-the-le... /



When you've lost Popeye Malkin, you're REALLY fringe. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jvii Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
88. NEOCONS HAVE MORE MONEY THAN BRAINS
If this is the best you can do to derail a train, you had better jump out of the way...I hope you are on a trestles about 100 stories up when you jump.


The court should charge you for wasting their time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arikara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
96. My uncle's going to be so disappointed...
He's been sending me updates on this issue and insisting that Obama won't be sworn in as pres because of it. When I pointed out all the inconsistencies, his comeback was that Hawaii isn't really a state so Obama can't be a citizen even if the birth certificate was valid. Unc isn't really a freeper just a weird sort of libertarian who votes for neo-conservative Harper in Canada.

I sent him the link, can't wait for his reply!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMillie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-08-08 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
97. Someone humor me....
if he wasn't born in the U.S., as the right alleges, then at some point he would have had to have been "naturalized" (or MADE a citizen).... otherwise he's an illegal alien.


um.....



is that really what they're alleging?


how is it possible that they don't see the ridiculousness of their own argument?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Oct 26th 2014, 02:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC