• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

SCOTUS Fails To Review Wrotnowski

Mike

Well-known member
Justices won't review Obama's eligibility to serve
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned down another challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to serve president because of his citizenship.

The appeal by Cort Wrotnowski of Greenwich, Conn., was denied Monday without comment.

Wrotnowski argued that Obama was a British subject at birth and therefore cannot meet the requirement for becoming president.

He wanted the high court to halt presidential electors from meeting to formally elect Obama as president.

Echoing an appeal that was rejected by justices last week, Wrotnowski said that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American, his Kenyan father was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen."

At least two other appeals over Obama's citizenship remain at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and Hawaii officials have confirmed.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Red Barn Angus said:
Why is he so untouchable? Seemingly he can do anything he wants and it is ok. What was in that kool aid?

It's the CHANGE he promised!!!!

Didn't you want CHANGE instead of the crooked politicians eventually getting caught everytime? :lol:

Rmember when the press covered up JFK's adulterous affairs and admitted it in the "Best Interest Of The Country"?? :lol:
 

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
Freedom of speech and of the press is a wonderful thing and I hope we never lose it but it is being abused so badly by the mainstream press that sometimes I wonder if we haven't already lost it. There are no checks and balances and anyone with access to the media can do and say whatever they wish with no responsibility or liability. Almost as bad, they can completely ignore the two sides of a story and report only the side they agree with as if it were the whole truth. The media seems to want to control the entire US population and darn near did it in the last election. How else would a nobody have won?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Or is it now we get so much more information :???: From every direction :???:
And much of it highlighted or expanded upon to stir up emotions to sell papers and books- and expand viewer coverage... :???:

I was watching a History Channel show on FDR the other night- and they were saying how every house hold in the country would gather around the radio to listen to his Sunday evening Fireside Chats- and his reports on about the nation, looking for hope...
Makes you wonder how many different radio stations there were back in the 30's- or how many folks got...And how most rural papers then were weekly's- so there wasn't bulletins coming out as fast as they happen...

Altho- back then, from what I've read, most radio announcers and reporters were reporting the news and not so much their opinions...That was left to the Editors and the Opinion Page...
But there were no hate spewers like the Rush's and Liddy's- no SNL's- and the closest thing to a controversial reporter of the news was Will Rogers and his humor filled opinions..
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Or is it now we get so much more information :???: From every direction :???:
And much of it highlighted or expanded upon to stir up emotions to sell papers and books- and expand viewer coverage... :???:

I was watching a History Channel show on FDR the other night- and they were saying how every house hold in the country would gather around the radio to listen to his Sunday evening Fireside Chats- and his reports on about the nation, looking for hope...
Makes you wonder how many different radio stations there were back in the 30's- or how many folks got...And how most rural papers then were weekly's- so there wasn't bulletins coming out as fast as they happen...

Altho- back then, from what I've read, most radio announcers and reporters were reporting the news and not so much their opinions...That was left to the Editors and the Opinion Page...
But there were no hate spewers like the Rush's and Liddy's- no SNL's- and the closest thing to a controversial reporter of the news was Will Rogers and his humor filled opinions..

You left your self ot of the hate spewers catagory, you spout more hate than 90% of t e postes on here!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course your hate is directed at BUSH and is limited to cutting and pasteing :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.

You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.

You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

Let's see what you know, Alice. Could you share with all of us when and to whom Obama proved his citizenship?
 

alice

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.

You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

Let's see what you know, Alice. Could you share with all of us when and to whom Obama proved his citizenship?

Don't have to...SCOTUS, and numerous other judges, took care of that.

Alice
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.

You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

An issue the Republican President of the United States George W Bush and his appointee- Attorney General Mukasey (the highest law enforcement official in the country)- both who are sworn to uphold and enforce the Constitution of the US refuse to even question :???:

And a Supreme Court that has continuosly thrown out the Case....A Court that 7 or the 9 sitting Justices- including the Chief Justice- were appointed by supposed conservative Republican Presidents :???:

That pretty well tells me-THERE IS NO ISSUE...

But the rightwingnuts following the screams of their Rush's, Liddys, and Anns know better :roll: :wink: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
alice said:
You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

Let's see what you know, Alice. Could you share with all of us when and to whom Obama proved his citizenship?

Don't have to...SCOTUS, and numerous other judges, took care of that.

Alice

Like I stated earlier, the snake is getting away with it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
alice said:
Sandhusker said:
Omamba is going to get away with it. The man who will swear to uphold the Constitution will by lying again when he takes that oath.

You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

An issue the Republican President of the United States George W Bush and his appointee- Attorney General Mukasey (the highest law enforcement official in the country)- both who are sworn to uphold and enforce the Constitution of the US refuse to even question :???:

And a Supreme Court that has continuosly thrown out the Case....A Court that 7 or the 9 sitting Justices- including the Chief Justice- were appointed by supposed conservative Republican Presidents :???:

That pretty well tells me-THERE IS NO ISSUE...

But the rightwingnuts following the screams of their Rush's, Liddys, and Anns know better :roll: :wink: :lol:

Then maybe you can tell us when and where Obama proved is qualifications.....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
alice said:
You know that for sure, right? You've seen and handled the evidence, right? You know more than SCOTUS, right? Pitiful...

Alice

An issue the Republican President of the United States George W Bush and his appointee- Attorney General Mukasey (the highest law enforcement official in the country)- both who are sworn to uphold and enforce the Constitution of the US refuse to even question :???:

And a Supreme Court that has continuosly thrown out the Case....A Court that 7 or the 9 sitting Justices- including the Chief Justice- were appointed by supposed conservative Republican Presidents :???:

That pretty well tells me-THERE IS NO ISSUE...

But the rightwingnuts following the screams of their Rush's, Liddys, and Anns know better :roll: :wink: :lol:

Then maybe you can tell us when and where Obama proved is qualifications.....

You need to take a memory course- or get some attention deficit medication-- as I and others have only posted it on here about 50 times....

Why are not all these folks listening to the rightwingnuts if their is an issue :???: Why hasn't your chosen defeated Champion McCain raised the question if their is an issue :???: He would have standing...

Now, to use Hillary's terminology from years past, it must be a huge "rightwing conspiracy" :???: :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Detract all you can, but you can't deny that Obama has never proved that he meets the requirements for office, and he refuses to do so. Just because nobody has forced him to be honest doesn't change those facts one iota. Facts are facts. Anybody who has one shred of respect for the Constitution would not defend him.
 

Vision

Well-known member
The most disturbing thing about these cases is that a judge said that voters and citizens have no standing in the court to challenge this on a Constitutional basis.

That is truly disturbing and as wrong as wrong could be.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Vision said:
The most disturbing thing about these cases is that a judge said that voters and citizens have no standing in the court to challenge this on a Constitutional basis.

That is truly disturbing and as wrong as wrong could be.

Vision-- if there truly is an issue - and any evidence to support it- why hasn't our current President of the US, George W. Bush and/or his appointed highest law enforcer of the land Attorney General Mukasey- who are both sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution- not bringing the issue before the courts- or even questioning it :???:

Could it be they have already used all the tools at their disposal and totally vetted the issue- and already know that it is a nonissue that was only brought up as a Karl Rove type campaign fear and smear tactic- the same as Obama being a Muslim... :???:

Or do we have a gigantic rightwing, leftwing combined wingnut "Area 54" type secret conspiracy going on here :???:
 

VanC

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
The most disturbing thing about these cases is that a judge said that voters and citizens have no standing in the court to challenge this on a Constitutional basis.

That is truly disturbing and as wrong as wrong could be.

Vision-- if there truly is an issue - and any evidence to support it- why hasn't our current President of the US, George W. Bush and/or his appointed highest law enforcer of the land Attorney General Mukasey- who are both sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution- not bringing the issue before the courts- or even questioning it :???:

Could it be they have already used all the tools at their disposal and totally vetted the issue- and already know that it is a nonissue that was only brought up as a Karl Rove type campaign fear and smear tactic- the same as Obama being a Muslim... :???:

Or do we have a gigantic rightwing, leftwing combined wingnut "Area 54" type secret conspiracy going on here :???:

I don't think this thing is an issue, either, and apparently the vast majority of Americans, incuding the courts, agree. However, as Vision said, I find it disturbing to be told that, as a U.S. citizen, I have no standing when it comes to issues involving the U.S. Constitution.

Also, I wonder if I'm the only one who believes, if the situation were reversed and we substituted a conservative candidate in Obama's spot, that everyone would suddenly switch sides on this "issue".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VanC said:
Oldtimer said:
Vision said:
The most disturbing thing about these cases is that a judge said that voters and citizens have no standing in the court to challenge this on a Constitutional basis.

That is truly disturbing and as wrong as wrong could be.

Vision-- if there truly is an issue - and any evidence to support it- why hasn't our current President of the US, George W. Bush and/or his appointed highest law enforcer of the land Attorney General Mukasey- who are both sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution- not bringing the issue before the courts- or even questioning it :???:

Could it be they have already used all the tools at their disposal and totally vetted the issue- and already know that it is a nonissue that was only brought up as a Karl Rove type campaign fear and smear tactic- the same as Obama being a Muslim... :???:

Or do we have a gigantic rightwing, leftwing combined wingnut "Area 54" type secret conspiracy going on here :???:

I don't think this thing is an issue, either, and apparently the vast majority of Americans, incuding the courts, agree. However, as Vision said, I find it disturbing to be told that, as a U.S. citizen, I have no standing when it comes to issues involving the U.S. Constitution.

Also, I wonder if I'm the only one who believes, if the situation were reversed and we substituted a conservative candidate in Obama's spot, that everyone would suddenly switch sides on this "issue".

Federal Courts are tough to get a case into--especially if they have been thrown out in state courts- mainly because of their heavy and ever growing caseloads... They are selective in the cases they take-and you need to be able to put some evidence up first to convince them if you even have a case, not just innuendo and maybe stuff- and especially with this Berg nut...If you read his history- he has a record of filing loads of nut cases- and has even been barred by some courts in filing anymore...
 

VanC

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
VanC said:
Oldtimer said:
Vision-- if there truly is an issue - and any evidence to support it- why hasn't our current President of the US, George W. Bush and/or his appointed highest law enforcer of the land Attorney General Mukasey- who are both sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution- not bringing the issue before the courts- or even questioning it :???:

Could it be they have already used all the tools at their disposal and totally vetted the issue- and already know that it is a nonissue that was only brought up as a Karl Rove type campaign fear and smear tactic- the same as Obama being a Muslim... :???:

Or do we have a gigantic rightwing, leftwing combined wingnut "Area 54" type secret conspiracy going on here :???:

I don't think this thing is an issue, either, and apparently the vast majority of Americans, incuding the courts, agree. However, as Vision said, I find it disturbing to be told that, as a U.S. citizen, I have no standing when it comes to issues involving the U.S. Constitution.

Also, I wonder if I'm the only one who believes, if the situation were reversed and we substituted a conservative candidate in Obama's spot, that everyone would suddenly switch sides on this "issue".

Federal Courts are tough to get a case into--especially if they have been thrown out in state courts- mainly because of their heavy and ever growing caseloads... They are selective in the cases they take-and you need to be able to put some evidence up first to convince them if you even have a case, not just innuendo and maybe stuff- and especially with this Berg nut...If you read his history- he has a record of filing loads of nut cases- and has even been barred by some courts in filing anymore...

I understand that. I support some kind of tort reform that would, at the very least, cut down on the number of frivolous lawsuits filed in an already overcrowded court system. Unfortunately, now that the Democrats are firmly in control, and receive millions in donations from trial lawyers, this isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I also realize that this Berg fellow, to put it bluntly, is a certified nutcase.

Again, what I find disturbing is that we've been told that, at least on this issue, U.S. citizens don't have the right to go to court over an issue relating to the Constitution. Does that mean that no more suits can be filed over civil rights issues, or guns, or free speech, or religion, etc.? Something just ain't right here.
 
Top