Clarence Thomas urges court to hear challange to Obama citizenship

VegasGuy

Star
OG Investor
(December 3, 2008) - In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ -- just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

Donofrio is a retired lawyer who identifies himself as a “citizen’s advocate.” The AFRO learned that he is a contributor to naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com, a Web site that raises questions about Obama’s citizenship.

Calls made to Donofrio’s residence were not returned to the AFRO by press time.

Donofrio is questioning Obama’s citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama’s dual citizenship does not make Obama “a natural born citizen” as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

...to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which
will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States...

Donofrio had initially tried to remove the names not only of Obama, but also the names of Republican Party presidential nominee John McCain and Socialist Workers’ Party Roger Calero from appearing on the Nov. 4 general election ballot in his home state of New Jersey.

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. possession. Calero would be ineligible to be president because he was born in Nicaragua.
After his efforts were unsuccessful in the New Jersey court system, he decided to take his case to a higher level.

On Nov. 6, Souter denied the stay. Donofrio, following the rules of the procedure for the Supreme Court, re-submitted the application as an emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which states, in part, that an emergency stay can be given to another justice, which is the choice of the petitioner.

Donofrio’s choice was Thomas. He submitted the emergency stay to Thomas’s office on Nov. 14. Thomas accepted the application on Nov. 19 and on that day, submitted it for consideration by his eight colleagues - known as a conference - and scheduled it for Dec. 5.

On Nov. 26, a supplemental brief was filed by Donofrio to the clerk’s office of the Supreme Court. A letter to the court explaining the reason for the emergency stay was filed on Dec. 1 at the clerk’s office.

Thomas’s actions were rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own circuit, the matter is dead. Even if, as can be the case under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration, that justice out of respect, will reject it also, said Trevor Morrison, a professor of law at Columbia University School of Law.

Morrison said that Thomas’s actions are once in a decade. “When that does happen, the case has to be of an extraordinary nature and this does not fit that circumstance,” he said. “My guess would be that Thomas accepted the case so it would go before the conference where it will likely be denied. If Thomas denied the petition, then Donofrio would be free to go to the other justices for their consideration. “This way, I would guess, the matter would be done with. Petitions of Donofrio’s types are hardly ever granted.”

Traditionally, justices do not respond to media queries, according to a spokesman from the Supreme Court Public Information Office.

Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and has been one of its most conservative members.

Before his ascension to the court, he was appointed by Bush to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Earlier, he served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - appointed by President Reagan - and worked various jobs under former Republican Sen. John Danforth.

It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

“The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”
Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.”

“There is no way that anyone can argue about whether Barack Obama is a citizen,” Singer said. “In this country, we have a system known as jus soli or birthright by citizenship. You are a citizen by being born on American soil and he (Obama) was born in Hawaii.”

Singer said that Donofrio’s argument that Obama’s father was a Kenyan national does not matter because citizenship is not based on parentage, but on where someone was born.

“This is the issue that some people have with illegal aliens in our country,” she said. “Children of illegal aliens, if they are born in the United States, are U.S. citizens. That is in the U.S. Constitution.”

Link to article

-VG
 
It's a shame that, Thomas even took notice, after the case was rejected. I will give him, the benefit of the doubt and say he just wants to air things out...:rolleyes:

*sits here and tries to guesstimate how much this case will cost...*
 
Damn how I despise this coon. Clarence Thomas is worse than an Uncle Tom --- he's a Judas. :angry:
 
Help me out with my civics, fam...
Admittedly, it has been *ahem* several years..
Some of the minutae escapes me.

If he was born in Hawaii, doenst that make him a US citizen?
Regardless of where the fuck his dad was from?

If his mom is an American, and he was born in America (Hawaii became a state in '59,
Obama was born in '61), how in the FUCK....I mean, ...huh?
Doesnt citizenship follow the uterus?
 
Help me out with my civics, fam...
Admittedly, it has been *ahem* several years..
Some of the minutae escapes me.

If he was born in Hawaii, doenst that make him a US citizen?
Regardless of where the fuck his dad was from?

If his mom is an American, and he was born in America (Hawaii became a state in '59,
Obama was born in '61), how in the FUCK....I mean, ...huh?
Doesnt citizenship follow the uterus?

Civics 101.

Both parents could spend their entire lives in another country, come here to visit, drop the kid in any of the 50 states and that kid could run for president. Period.

Now, if there is a benefit of doubt to give to Mr. Thomas, that if the supreme court certifies Obama, that should settle it one and for all. Because I would really be surprised if the supreme court would rule against the will of the people.

-VG
 
Yeah (mrjody & VG), you're both right -- but some are arguing (and I haven't really researched it) that when Barack's mother took him to Indonesia and married an Indonesian that worked a renounciation of her and her minor son's citizenship that the never acted to reclaim, to this day. There are some other crazy-ass arguments well.

With respect to Clarence: I'm really trying hard, real hard, to give this s.o.b. a break; trying hard to beleive that maybe, just maybe, he is simply taking action expedient to get rid of this dumb-assed suit. Man. It ain't easy being me.


QueEx
 
Because I would really be surprised if the supreme court would rule against the will of the people.
Presidential Election 2000 Popular vote
Al Gore: 50,999,897
Geo Bush: 50, 456,002
 
Presidential Election 2000 Popular vote
Al Gore: 50,999,897
Geo Bush: 50, 456,002

That argument doesn't work for me. As much as I understand this popular vote argument, the question wasn't decided on that and not what the courts were made to decide. So, no the courts didn't vote against the will of the people, this issue was already decided in the Electoral college.

You don't win presidential elections by popular vote.

-VG
 
aac495.jpg
 
Another argument is that Obama was born in Kenya. The supporters of this claim state that there is a birth record for him in Kenya.
 
I dare them to over turn the will of 53% of the American vote.

I hope Thomas is only doing this to air out the conspiracy nut jobs from the right.

If this is something different, then I might have to agree with Thomas's uncle tom status...
 
<font size="4">

Why Barack Obama is Ineligible to Serve as President of
the United States because of "Questionable Citizenship"
The Donofrio Case​

</font size>


  • Barack Obama's father, B. H. Obama, was born in and a resident of Kenya;

  • At the time of Barack Obama's birth, Kenya was then a British colony making residents of Kenya citizens of the United Kingdom;

  • So, Barack Obama was born with "Dual Citizenship": he was a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the United Kingdom;

  • THE U.S. CONSTITUTION: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which states the following:
    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States​

  • What they are saying in the Donofrio Case: The plaintiffs in the Donofrio Case are arguing that a strict interpretation of the phrase, natural born Citizen which would require that: (1) Citizenship is inherited from one's father (under natural law); and (2) one must be born in the actual territory of the United States.
    - Since Barack's father was citizen of the U.K., Barack could not have inherited citizenship of the U.S., even though he may have met the second requirement of having been born in the U.S.

    (The reason for this rule: if your father was loyal to another country (a citizen of another country) you might also be loyal to that country and not loyal to the United States -- and the U.S. president should not have competiting loyalties. Of course, LOL, the framers of the Constitution were themselves citizens of other countries, mostrly Great Britian -- but, LOL, they exempted themselves).​

The case is before the U.S. Supreme Court TODAY

The Electoral College is set to meet on December 15, 2008
to certify the results of the election; and to declare Barack
Obama as the winner of sufficient number of electoral votes
to be elected President of the United States of America.

What Plaintiffs Want:

  • To stop the Electoral College certification on December 15, 2008; and

  • To keep the Electoral College from certifying the election UNTIL a
    NEW ELECTION is held with "Qualified Candidates."

QueEx
 
I hope Thomas is only doing this to air out the conspiracy nut jobs from the right.

If this is something different, then I might have to agree with Thomas's uncle tom status...

Might? He's done plenty of things to warrant being called an uncle tom. Fuck that coon.
 
<font size="5"><center>
Why do bloggers continue to press
issue of Obama's birthplace?</font size><font size="4">


It isn’t just that he's the wrong person to lead the nation;
they're also saying he's constitutionally ineligible to be president</font size></center>


Kansas City Star
By Rick Montgomery
Thursday, December 4, 2008


In the outer cosmos of the blogosphere, the presidential election isn’t over.

Barack Obama, now busily forming his administration, isn’t just the wrong person to lead the nation, claim Web sites such as America Must Know and Right Side News.

He is, they contend, constitutionally ineligible to be president.

The argument is over his place of birth — Hawaii, if you accept statements by Hawaiian officials, his 1961 birth notice in a Honolulu newspaper and a certified document his campaign obtained 18 months ago.

Still, legions of anti-Obama bloggers are so convinced he was born in Kenya that they’ve filed more than a dozen lawsuits nationwide.

They cite the Constitution’s requirement that presidents be "natural born citizens." They want the election declared void if Obama doesn’t deliver an original birth certificate — subject to an inspection by forensic experts — to be sure.

One litigant’s U.S. Supreme Court filing is scheduled to be discussed in private by the justices later this week.

Justice Clarence Thomas distributed to his colleagues a request that the high court weigh in before the Electoral College makes Obama’s victory official later this month. The justices may decide in a Friday conference whether to hear or cast away a lawsuit dismissed in a lower court and appealed by a retired New Jersey lawyer named Leo C. Donofrio, who also has his own Web site.

Yet another site, PeoplesPassions.org, beckons the president-elect: “If you’re eligible, show us the proof!”

Obama's campaign tried to settle all doubts months ago when it digitally scanned for all Web browsers to view a “certification of live birth,” signed by Hawaii’s registrar of vital statistics and carrying the state’s seal.

The skeptics response of "fake" prompted Brooks Jackson, who directs the nonpartisan FactCheck.org, to call the entire affair “the stupidest, silliest thing.”

FactCheck.org's research into Obama's birth records — and its rejecting of rumors that he was born anywhere but Hawaii — has been the most-viewed article in the history of the Web site. The site was launched five years ago by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center.

There, online visitors can see Obama’s birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961, along with photos taken from all angles of the campaign’s certified copy of the birth document.

The original is said to be safely stored in Hawaii records vaults, though it, like other birth certificates, is inaccessible to the general public.


Tangled conspiracy

In the view of fact-checker Jackson, “it all reflects a surge of paranoid distress among people who don’t like Barack Obama” and who want the election results to go away.

To others, the scintillating saga is just another product of the instant, unstoppable and often unverifiable ways of Internet culture. “There’s such a blitz of material, it’s hard to keep track” for anti-Obama blogger Joan Swirsky, a New York author who said she answered 300 e-mails daily in response to her reports about the birth certificate.

“When it’s something unresolved, when it’s a mystery, it’s very provocative.”

Obama’s supporters said there was no mystery. But true believers of a cover-up cite a YouTube video of his paternal grandmother in Kenya speaking in a tribal tongue and purportedly saying she witnessed his birth.

And if that doesn't keep him out of the White House, they point to the decision of Obama’s mother to marry an Indonesian man and travel to his country, with young Barack, in 1965. School records that give Barack his stepfather’s last name, Soetoro, screams to connoisseurs of the plot that the child had become a naturalized Indonesian citizen.

According to the skeptics, FactCheck.org and other spoilers of the rumors are part of a tangled web of conspiracy and silence. Some of the accused co-conspirators include:

  • Election officials nationwide who put candidates’ names on the ballots;

  • Judges who throw out the lawsuits;

  • Mainstream media (not even FOX News has done much with the story);

  • Obama’s family, who must have begun to execute the scheme 47 years ago, when the Honolulu newspaper for some reason agreed to go along and print the newborn’s name;

  • Hawaiian authorities, plus their Republican governor.

Hawaii officials insisted they had verified the existence of the original birth certificate but, citing privacy laws, said they could not just hand it to anyone who asks. As Hawaii health director Chiyome Fukino, overseer of the files, told the Honolulu newspaper:

“This has gotten ridiculous.”


Started by Democrats

This week a full-page ad in Obama’s local paper, The Chicago Tribune, demanded that the president-elect produce not only a certified copy of his “vault” birth certificate but copies of his “certificate of citizenship” and college admission forms.

The sponsor of the ad, We the People Foundation for Constitution Education, Inc., paid for it through Web-generated donations. The organization currently is raising money to hire a forensic expert who can analyze the documents Obama turns over, said foundation chairman Bob Shulz.

The Constitution states that “no person except a natural born citizen” is eligible for the presidency, even though foreign-born U.S. citizens at the time of the drafting were grandfathered in. (In Sen. John McCain’s case, it’s OK to be born on a U.S. military base in Panama. But his eligibility, too, is challenged in Donofrio’s lawsuit before the high court.)

Arguments over Obama’s country of birth were first raised by supporters of Democrat Hillary Clinton when the New York senator was fighting for the party’s nomination.

Democrats remain among those suggesting a cover-up, including Philip J. Berg, former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general. After a federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed Berg v. Obama as “too vague,” Berg petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to halt tabulation of the election results.

Justice David Souter rejected Berg’s appeal the day before the vote.

Among the secretaries of state who have been sued is California’s — by Alan Keyes, the presidential candidate of America’s Independent Party.

Because he competed against Obama on the state ballot, Keyes may have the strongest legal standing of all the post-election litigants to have his day in court, legal experts said.

Now even Hawaiian officials are shutting up.

“Because of the legal filings … ” a health director spokesman told The Kansas City Star, “we have been advised by our attorney general not to conduct interviews.”

That surely will make the rounds of the true believers.

“You can quote me,” said Willard S. Norton, a Kansas City consulting engineer who has followed the allegations. Obama “has either got to produce some evidence or we’ve got to shut this down.”

His presidency, that is.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/57036.html
 
"you might also be loyal to that country and not loyal to the United States"

So they want to prove a might be? In other words they are headed into court to prove a might be is really an IS?

No wonder lawyers get such a bad rap.

-VG
 
"you might also be loyal to that country and not loyal to the United States"

So they want to prove a might be? In other words they are headed into court to prove a might be is really an IS?

No wonder lawyers get such a bad rap.

-VG
At this point VG, I'm not sure one would have to make a case of "Disloyalty" or that it was ever the intent to prove that a potential president had questionable loyalties.

As I mentioned above, the competiting loyalties theory was supposedly the reason that the founding fathers may have used the language that they did. One wouldn't have to prove questionable loyalty -- it is presumed and so as to avoid the possibility of having someone in the presidency with divided loyalties, by birth, a person who is not a natural born Citizen is ineligible, ab initio (from the start).

QueEx
 
you know that don't make sense right?

You know damn well that this is a spurious lawsuit. Sour grapes by the republicans and the right wing nuts for their embarrassing ass kicking across the electrorial board they received on November 4th. With all of the issues facing this country, he (they, you) would rather waste the peoples time, effort and money on some partisan, conservative talk radio bullshit. Does this clarify it for you?
 
Last edited:
You know damn well that this is a spurious lawsuit. Sour grapes by the republicans and the right wing nuts for their embarrassing ass kicking across the electrorial board they received on November 4th. With all of the issues facing this country, he (they, you) would rather waste the peoples time, effort and money on some partisan, conservative talk radio bullshit. Does this clarify it for you?

I think there is merit to what you're saying. On the other hand, I've also noticed that when a Republican is in the White House, the same thing occurs among the Left Nuts:

  • Nixon blamed the anti-war left for his demise;

  • Jimmy Carter blames the right for retaliation for Nixon and, thus, his demise;

  • There is no question the left counter-attacked (unsuccessfullly) during Reagan's tenure but suceeded against H.W. Bush making him a one-termer;

  • Then the right hit-back hard against Ole Billy Boy, all the way to his bedroom and making way for one of the biggest disasters of a president in "W"; and

  • The left relentlessly attacked "W" who's stupidity and incompetence gave rise and probably "prematurely" to the First Black President of the United States.

So, in truth, both sides raise spurious issues and sometimes, it leads to strange results.

QueEx
 
I think there is merit to what you're saying. On the other hand, I've also noticed that when a Republican is in the White House, the same thing occurs among the Left Nuts:

  • Nixon blamed the anti-war left for his demise;

  • Jimmy Carter blames the right for retaliation for Nixon and, thus, his demise;

  • There is no question the left counter-attacked (unsuccessfullly) during Reagan's tenure but suceeded against H.W. Bush making him a one-termer;

  • Then the right hit-back hard against Ole Billy Boy, all the way to his bedroom and making way for one of the biggest disasters of a president in "W"; and

  • The left relentlessly attacked "W" who's stupidity and incompetence gave rise and probably "prematurely" to the First Black President of the United States.

So, in truth, both sides raise spurious issues and sometimes, it leads to strange results.

QueEx

thank you que.

The difference between democrats and republicans is that one admits that they are assholes. The other one promises everything, and fucks everyone who they made the promises too.
 
thank you que.

The difference between democrats and republicans is that one admits that they are assholes. The other one promises everything, and fucks everyone who they made the promises too.

Spoken partisanly, like a true Republican.

I prefer instead the words of the former segregationist, George C. Wallace:

"There is not a dime's worth of difference between them."

QueEx
 
Just some things to point out:

I think there is merit to what you're saying. On the other hand, I've also noticed that when a Republican is in the White House, the same thing occurs among the Left Nuts:

  • Nixon blamed the anti-war left for his demise;

Nixon blamed the media for his demise. In 1952, then vice president Nixon used is dog, checkers as cover for accusations of him having a secret slush fund. It worked and he blamed the media for his problems. During the 1960 presidential debate against JFK, many claimed Nixon won the debate on substance, but lost against JFK's superior media charisma. He blamed the media. During his issues with Watergate, he lashed out at the so-called left wing media, claiming they were out to get him. And in one of last television interviews before he died, on CSPAN in 1992 he claimed the media hated conservatives (Reagan sure got a pass). I guess that is why he was so paranoid, or is this a common trait of conservatism.

BTW, the term anti-war left was a blanket sound byte created by the right to deligitimize those that took issue with the Vietnam war. Kind of what is happening now with Iraq. The conservatives blame the so called anti-war left for everything.


  • Jimmy Carter blames the right for retaliation for Nixon and, thus, his demise;

Honestly Jimmy Carter has gotten a bad rap. If you look back at his four years, his problem was he was too sincere, which made him appear to be weak, he wasn't, he was a respected Naval officer. His admission that he did have cardinal thoughts (sounds quaint now but back then a president actually admitting he was human?), his family's dysfunctionality being play out publicly (could he control his alcoholic brother?) his failure to force the Iranian hostage crisis to a conclusion, (his refusal to adopt large scale military action in to Tehran did result in not one hostage being harmed or killed) and his strong stance for establishing a national energy policy. (many said he was blaming the American public and lifestyle for his lack of solutions to the economy. I guess now he could be called a profit.)

  • There is no question the left counter-attacked (unsuccessfullly) during Reagan's tenure but suceeded against H.W. Bush making him a one-termer;

The left's attacks against Reagan were a) he raised the military budget to levels so large, the US began on the greatest national deficit the world has ever seen. We still have not recovered from it and all of its ramifications. b) Regan's attacks against organized labor, which began the demise of the middle class in the US and spurred big business's assault on the American public. Remember the Wall Street scandals and S&L crimes resulting from these policies? Regan did oversee the collapse of the Soviet Union, but were was the peace dividend?

  • Then the right hit-back hard against Ole Billy Boy, all the way to his bedroom and making way for one of the biggest disasters of a president in "W"; and

Yea, I bet a lot of them wish they hadn't done that if they knew it would have resulted in GW! $60 million to find out that Clinton had his dick sucked. Talk about cutting off your nose despite your face!

  • The left relentlessly attacked "W" who's stupidity and incompetence gave rise and probably "prematurely" to the First Black President of the United States.

GW recently admitted publicly his incompetence on a variety of his policies. I wonder why some of the right wing BGOL posters haven't started threads on these gems.

So, in truth, both sides raise spurious issues and sometimes, it leads to strange results.

No doubt. My question is, which is more spurious, wanting to impeach GW for admitted torture, wire tapping and lying about reasons to start a war against a sovereign country or trying to deligitimize the overwhelming support of a president elect. I guess it depends how partisan you are?


QueEx
 
thoughtone said:
My question is, which is more spurious, wanting to impeach GW for admitted torture, wire tapping and lying about reasons to start a war against a sovereign country or trying to deligitimize the overwhelming support of a president elect. I guess it depends how partisan you are?
I don't know that I would judge either to me more spurious than the other. I have questions whether there is any "criminal" conduct to prosecute G.W. for after he leaves office -- as opposed to whether the better case may have been his impeachment while in office for the debacle and colossal errors in Iraq. Seriously, what crime(s) do you think he has committed ???

On the other hand, I guess what I as arguing above and what I would really like to see is the end to the back-bench sniping. That is, an end to the party-out-of-power dogging the shit of the party-in-power merely to weaken it so that it may then become the party-in-power so that the resultant party-out-of-power will then do the same shit, all over again. I mean, in the redundant words of Yogi Berra, its déjà vu all over again.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the minotrity party holding the majority party responsible and accountable. But I get sick of the senseless, petty shit that goes on -- like a football running game trying to wear the other down with a lot of insignificance.

QueEx
 
Supreme Court just rejected the suit. All eyes on the Electoral College.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28111773/


Court won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
Suit claimed Obama was British-born and not a 'natural born' U.S. citizen

Associated Press: Updated 10:12 a.m. ET Dec. 8, 2008

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.
 
`

This excerpt from the Washington Post rather succinctly summarizes the present status of the "Birth" and "Citizenship" cases:
<font size="3">The case [Donofrio] had little chance at the high court, but became the subject of a tremendous amount of speculation and debate on ideological political blogs.

Right-wing blogs were outraged when Justice David H. Souter denied Donofrio's petition for an injunction, and left-wing blogs smelled trouble when Justice Clarence Thomas referred the matter to the full court for consideration.

In fact, both were routine procedures, as the court's action today shows. There were no recorded dissents to the decision dismissing the case.


This hardly means the [other] lawsuits are over. There are two other cases at the Supreme Court, neither of which has been scheduled for consideration. The most celebrated is filed by Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa. There are others still at lower court levels.

Berg argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama has said and Hawaii officials confirm. Alternately, Berg argues that Obama may have renounced his citizenship as a boy in Indonesia, where he lived for a time with his mother and stepfather.

Those supporting Berg do not believe a birth certificate Obama's campaign has produced.

Factcheck.org has done an independent investigation of the controversy.

"FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate," the group writes. "We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship.... Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."</font size>​

See also:


The truth about Obama's birth certificate


Alan Keyes suing for proof of Obama's citizenship


Get over The Fact That Obama is Black


QueEx
 
Spoken partisanly, like a true Republican.

I prefer instead the words of the former segregationist, George C. Wallace:

"There is not a dime's worth of difference between them."

QueEx

so you don't agree that the things democrats promises eventually screw the people they make the promises too?
 
Back
Top