Main Menu

High court rejects rehearing in Hollister

The denial by the Supreme Court of a request for reconsideration of its previous denial in Hollister v Soetoro1 was considered by me, even here in this den of Obama conspiracy stuff, too unimportant to warrant an article. It was a foregone conclusion; nothing really “happened”.

I wouldn’t be writing about it now except that CNN reported the story and it was picked up by a Fox News station in Kansas City, MO. So if the Supreme Court’s denial is not news, the CNN coverage is.

So, if you haven’t heard, Gregory Hollister asked the two justices appointed by President Obama to recuse themselves, and that the Court reconsider his petition to review the dismissal of his lawsuit over Obama’s eligibility.

However, the Court didn’t even ask President Obama to reply. No recusal, no reconsideration, end of story except that CNN reported it.

See also:


1Birthers can’t stomach the President’s name, much less his office, so they call him “Soetoro” after his Indonesian step father, and a name written on an Indonesian elementary school admission form.

, , ,

25 Responses to High court rejects rehearing in Hollister

  1. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 8, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

    I’m more interested in the reaction of the bitherstani than this utterly predictable result. Mr. Anderson (itooktheredpill) is upset about the lack of recusals over at Dr. Kate’s… I wonder what he thinks about Justice Thomas failing to report the sources of his wife’s income and then joining a ruling that cleared the way for her to receive millions more from undisclosed sources… (I’m sure none of them would have any reason to want to influence a SCOTUS justice… right?).

    itooktheredpill
    March 7, 2011 at 11:58 am
    Some have asked about the order list…

    It is clear from today’s order list that Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves!

    Compare what is said about other cases, like this:

    10-762 LA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., ET AL. V. BAYER AG, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    To the Soetoro case:

    10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.

    The petitions for rehearing are denied.

    And another case:

    10-6618 BANEY, JOHN-PIERRE V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    It is clear that Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves in the Sotoro case, even though they have a very clear conflict of interest, and a petition asking for them to recuse themselves was NOT responded to by the court in the prescribed time, so by the Court’s own rules, that request should have been granted and Sotomayor and Kagan should have recused themselves.

    It really is a travesty that they did not, and that the court has turned a blind eye to the Soetoro usurpation.

    The usurpation continues unchecked, as the Supreme Court is in full “see no evil” and/or “ostrich with its head in the sand” and/or “unindicted co-conspirators” mode…

    http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/supremes-to-conference-on-obama-eligibility/#comment-24838

  2. avatar
    obsolete March 9, 2011 at 3:32 am #

    Birthers who refer to President Obama as “Soetoro” should be given no acknowledgment or consideration of their stupid claims. They don’t deserve respect because they don’t give it.

  3. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 3:40 am #

    obsolete:
    Birthers who refer to President Obama as “Soetoro” should be given no acknowledgment or consideration of their stupid claims. They don’t deserve respect because they don’t give it.

    More than failing to show respect they are showing enormous disrespect (even contempt) to our head of state. It is despicable and nothing short of unpatriotic.

  4. avatar
    The Magic M March 9, 2011 at 4:33 am #

    > and a petition asking for them to recuse themselves was NOT responded to by the court in the prescribed time, so by the Court’s own rules, that request should have been granted and Sotomayor and Kagan should have recused themselves

    Still flogging that dead horse, as usual. It’s so funny when people with no knowledge of SCOTUS rules parrot crap they’ve read somewhere on the interwebs.

    The “tacit admission” meme is a common resort of cranks everywhere. I’ve seen the same this side of the Atlantic, where people make up 14- or 21-day limits within which their “petitions” (or whatnot) to courts (government entities, companies, persons, …) are “to be rejected with specificity or otherwise count as admitted”. Of course none of them can ever cite any law that supports this idea, let alone actually mentions such a “14- or 21-day” rule.

  5. avatar
    Lupin March 9, 2011 at 7:19 am #

    Birthers are loathsome individuals.

    In the 1970s I had friends who had fled Chile after the coup. (Which saved their lives.) Birthers are the exact type of people who flocked to Pinochet’s side and became his torturers and thugs — not as much the regular army.

    If given a free rein, unchecked, they would murder “leftists”, rape their women and dump your body in ditches.

    Sorry to sound melodramatic but I do the type. (I was also in Spain while Franco was still alive.) Consider yourselves lucky that they don’t have any real power.

  6. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 7:52 am #

    Since when do Justices have to recuse themselves from cases simply because the President who appointed them is a party? A substantial portion of Supreme Court cases name the President or a member of his Cabinet as defendants. Many cases that don’t have a government amicus brief on one side or another. It has never been the casethat Justices appointed by that President recuse themselves from such cases. If it were, then, in effect, a Justice would only take full office when the President who appointed them left office (and what if they were succeeded by their Vice President?). That is clearly ridiculous and has never been law or practice.

    Justice Kagan is in a special situation since she was Solicitor General and argued some cases before the Court. However, none of the birtherr cases ever reached that stage (nor ever will), so she has nno reason to recuse herself.

    Anyway, what difference does it make? Would the birthers feel better losing 7-0 instead of 9-0?

  7. avatar
    Reality Check March 9, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    Scientist: Anyway, what difference does it make? Would the birthers feel better losing 7-0 instead of 9-0?

    I am not sure it is correct to even portray this as if there were an actual vote. We know that neither petition made it through the clerk review and no justice asked for a response. While that has the same effect as a 9-0 vote there was no actual vote. (Unless the Times of India has some fabricated inside poop again like they did for Orly’s case.)

  8. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    Reality Check: I am not sure it is correct to even portray this as if there were an actual vote. We know that neither petition made it through the clerk review and no justice asked for a response.

    I realize there wasn’t a vote; that would be reserved for actual cases, as opposed to nonsense. No justice asked for a response. So that’s 0 of 9. Would they feel better if that were 0 of 7? I still fail to see how Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves would help the birthers.

  9. avatar
    Reality Check March 9, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    Scientist: I still fail to see how Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves would help the birthers.

    Agreed, I think they are only recusing themselves on real cases when warranted. They are typically cases they may have ruled on at a lower level.

  10. avatar
    The Magic M March 9, 2011 at 8:38 am #

    > I still fail to see how Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves would help the birthers.

    In reality, it wouldn’t. In their cloudcuckooland, there’s 3 SCOTUS judges in favour of declaring Obama ineligible (remember facts don’t bother birthers), so if two judges recused themselves, those 3 would be the majority and the birthers would have their case prevail.
    At least that meme is valid for that part of the birthers who haven’t thrown SCOTUS on the “part of the conspiracy” pile.

  11. avatar
    Scientist March 9, 2011 at 9:21 am #

    The Magic M: there’s 3 SCOTUS judges in favour of declaring Obama ineligible (remember facts don’t bother birthers), so if two judges recused themselves, those 3 would be the majority and the birthers would have their case prevail.

    9-2 = 7 3 is still not a majority.

  12. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 9, 2011 at 11:21 am #

    Scientist: 9-2 = 73 is still not a majority.

    Math isn’t the birther’s strong suit either…

  13. avatar
    The Magic M March 9, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    My bad this time (not the birthers’), I got confused over the number of SCOTUS judges. That’s where the birthers’ claim that, after recusal of two, a “rule of three” somehow magically replaces the “rule of four”. I knew that had to fit in there somewhere…

    Anyways, I should quit saying what the birthers would say, it tends to mess up my brain…

  14. avatar
    misha March 9, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    Lupin: Consider yourselves lucky that they don’t have any real power.

    Birthers are fascists at heart. So is Huckabee:
    http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/11/few-words-from-mike-huckabee.html

  15. avatar
    bob March 9, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    The Magic M: My bad this time (not the birthers’), I got confused over the number of SCOTUS judges. That’s where the birthers’ claim that, after recusal of two, a “rule of three” somehow magically replaces the “rule of four”.

    Justice Douglas sort of made up that rule when there were two vacancies on SCOTUS. Except it was often ignored.

    Bonus fun for birthers: Research Justice Douglas; research his views on standing.

  16. avatar
    gorefan March 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    bob: Justice Douglas sort of made up that rule when there were two vacancies on SCOTUS

    That’s true, he sorta made it up on the fly.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/404/1242/case.html

    “There are now two vacant seats on the Court. Moreover, three out of seven are enough to grant a petition for certiorari.”

    What’s funny is that the birthers think Justice Scalia would go along with the Vattel nonsense, when everything he’s written is to the contrary.

  17. avatar
    Rickey March 9, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    obsolete:
    Birthers who refer to President Obama as “Soetoro” should be given no acknowledgment or consideration of their stupid claims. They don’t deserve respect because they don’t give it.

    I’m always amused when birthers talk about there being no proof that Obama legally changed his name from Soetoro back to Obama, when there is no evidence that he ever legally changed his name from Obama to Soetoro. It seems to me that if they want proof of the former, they first need proof of the latter.

  18. avatar
    G March 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm #

    Rickey: I’m always amused when birthers talk about there being no proof that Obama legally changed his name from Soetoro back to Obama, when there is no evidence that he ever legally changed his name from Obama to Soetoro. It seems to me that if they want proof of the former, they first need proof of the latter.

    Agreed. Such irrational hypocricy of the birthers is always so blatently obvious and just goes to show that they “concern troll” at best to cover the real targeted bigotry behind their weak and / or fake arguments.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy March 9, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    The Magic M: > I still fail to see how Kagan and Sotomayor recusing themselves would help the birthers.In reality, it wouldn’t. In their cloudcuckooland, there’s 3 SCOTUS judges in favour of declaring Obama ineligible (remember facts don’t bother birthers), so if two judges recused themselves, those 3 would be the majority and the birthers would have their case prevail.At least that meme is valid for that part of the birthers who haven’t thrown SCOTUS on the “part of the conspiracy” pile.

    Other facts that don’t seem to bother birthers:

    In all (as far as I know) of the birther petitions for cert, the respondents have waived filing an opposition to cert. It only takes one justice asking for a response for a response to be required. No response means none of the justices are seriously considering it.

    No justice has ever asked for a respondent to file a brief.

    Oh yeah, and for the Vattelists…..ask Justice Scalia how he feels about citing to foreign sources.

  20. avatar
    gorefan March 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    The President weights in on the this topic.

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/09/obama-makes-light-of-birthplace-rumors/

  21. avatar
    Tarrant March 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    Birthers seem to cling to the belief that there are three Justices willing to take the case and rule their way that are being stymied by the other six. However, they ignore a few points:

    1. If even one Justice, prior to a conference, leans towards voting to taking a case, the Court will request a response even if the respondent had waived that right. To date, the right to respond has always been waived, and the Court has never requested a response after that. That likely means zero Justices looked upon the case with any interest.

    2. Justices are free to write a dissent when a case has been denied certiorari. If there really were three Justices wanting to take the case, and who really thought there was a serious Constitutional issue to address here, they would almost certainly write a dissent to the refusal to grant cert.

  22. avatar
    US Citizen March 10, 2011 at 6:07 am #

    Another funny thing is that the Supreme court is mostly made up of conservatives and still the birthers can’t get a foot in their door.
    When the SC decided the Bush election, every GOP’er stood proudly with them and defended their judgment.
    But now the birthers accuse many of these same justices as being in on some conspiracy.
    They’re sore losers and racists.

  23. avatar
    Bob Weber March 12, 2011 at 12:16 am #

    Rickey: I’m always amused when birthers talk about there being no proof that Obama legally changed his name from Soetoro back to Obama, when there is no evidence that he ever legally changed his name from Obama to Soetoro. It seems to me that if they want proof of the former, they first need proof of the latter.

    *********************************
    At common law, one can use any name one wishes, so long as it is not used to escape a debt or obligation, or to fraudulently claim the property or credentials of another person. No need to file anything in any court (although this may be a good idea to avoid legal confusions.) My mother used different names before she was ever married – her “real” name, and an Anglicized version of her “difficult, ethnic” name . That’s why the name on her high school diploma is different from the name on her School of Nursing diploma.

  24. avatar
    Northland10 March 12, 2011 at 8:20 am #

    Rickey: I’m always amused when birthers talk about there being no proof that Obama legally changed his name from Soetoro back to Obama, when there is no evidence that he ever legally changed his name from Obama to Soetoro. It seems to me that if they want proof of the former, they first need proof of the latter

    My amusement grows when they use the “Indonesian School Application” to “prove” that he legally changed his name. Of course, this same document states Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Consistency has never been the birthers strong suit.

  25. avatar
    Northland10 March 12, 2011 at 8:24 am #

    Tarrant: 1. If even one Justice, prior to a conference, leans towards voting to taking a case, the Court will request a response even if the respondent had waived that right. To date, the right to respond has always been waived, and the Court has never requested a response after that. That likely means zero Justices looked upon the case with any interest.

    They also forget that Alito’s clerk does not participate in the “Cert Pool.” Therefore, Alito may be getting separate summaries then then others. Yet, this one of the “three” Justices the birthers hope for has never requested a response.