Hey, we haven't had an "Obama's bogus birth certificate" thread in a while

[swampy]

" Donofrio said the main stream media should stop saying SCOTUS refused to hear the case. It was distributed for conference on Nov. 19. They had the issue before them for for sixteen days. Yes, they didn’t take it to the next level of full briefs and oral argument. But they certainly heard the case and read the issues. The media is failing to acknowledge that. The case and issues were considered. Getting the case to the full Court for such consideration was my goal. I trust the Supreme Court had good reason to deny the application. Despite many attempts to stop their full review, my case was placed on their desks and into their minds. Please remember that. It’s important for history to record that.]

My application was denied. The Honorable Court chose not to state why.

Wrotnowksi v. Connecticut Secretary of State is still pending as an emergency application resubmitted to the Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia as of last Tuesday. I worked extensively on that application and it includes a more solid brief and a less treacherous lower Court procedural history.

After six days, it’s interesting that Scalia neither denied it nor referred it to the full Court." - Donofrino http://countusout.wordpress.com/

I haven't seen the SCOTUS docket entry, but from what I understand, there is some discussion by legal eagles that the entry stated that only the stay was tossed, but that there was no mention of the writ of certiorari being tossed.

Stay tuned

[Greg the dogsitter]

Thanks for the link!

"Supreme Court sheds no tears over the DEATH of the CONSTiTUTiON?"

What a goober!!

[JoeH]

swampy wrote:

Stay tuned

Oh I will, if only to see the contortions of illogic you go through to justify thinking there will be any different outcome than what there has been so far. It is somewhat amusing to me. :popcorn:

[deckeda]

If I go into a restaurant and look over the menu and leave, does the restaurant claim that my presence there had real meaning?

Meanwhile, I didn't get a response here:

deckeda wrote:
[quote=swampy]
... the case was tossed on a technicality and not the merits. ...

Who told you that?
swampy, still going with the technicality or might there be the slightest chance it had no merit? Interesting how Donofrino has more trust in the Supremes than you.

[Ted King]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/1...index.html

(quote)

Throughout the press conference, the conspiracy theorists had trouble keeping things focused. Harlem minister James David Manning wandered off on a tangent about how Obama's election still means "there's never been a black womb" that produced a president. Manning might have seemed like he was making a case against Obama based on some theory of black nationalism, except that he admitted he had endorsed John McCain in the campaign. That was after he had called Obama "this usurper, this long-legged mack daddy."

Taitz -- the lead attorney in the case the Supreme Court declined to hear Monday morning -- kept making stranger and stranger assertions. At one point, she asked why the government had fined broadcasters for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction," but didn't intervene to force the media to report on Obama's allegedly phony birth certificate. She claimed Obama holds passports from at least four countries, compared him to Black Panther leader Eldridge Cleaver, equated the "controversy" about Obama to Watergate, and finished her tour-de-force presentation by saying that if Obama can claim he's a U.S. citizen and win an election, then so could just about anyone.

(unquote)

[mikeylikesit]

Where did she study law? Where is she credentialed? I like Swampy like questions.