Main Menu

Keyes v Bowen at SCOTUS

US Supreme Court

The California case of Keyes v Bowen is now docketed at the Supreme Court on appeal from the Supreme Court of California.

Keyes’ attorney Gary Kreep argued that California Secretary of State Debra Bowen failed to meet her obligation to verify the eligibility of candidate Barack Obama to be President, and his right to appear on the California Ballot. California argued successfully that the California Secretary of State has no such statutory responsibility.

Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski unsuccessfully attempted to have the Supreme Court review similar cases coming out of the 2008 election.

A response is due from the State of California by June 3.

, ,

19 Responses to Keyes v Bowen at SCOTUS

  1. avatar
    JD Reed May 13, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    So what kind of remedy could the Supremes fashion if they were to actually hear the case and render a decision?

  2. avatar
    richCares May 13, 2011 at 10:39 pm #

    this is a paypal ploy by Kreep, nothing more!

  3. avatar
    G May 13, 2011 at 11:50 pm #

    This will go down in flames with merely a few word mention on the list of cases that the Supremes refuse to hear, just like every single frivolous birther case that has tried this route before…

  4. avatar
    Rickey May 13, 2011 at 11:52 pm #

    Let’s not forget Lightfoot v. Bowen, an Orly lawsuit which covered much of the same ground as Keyes v. Bowen. SCOTUS denied cert in that case, so there is no reason to believe that this one will turn out differently.

    Also, it isn’t just the State of California which is defending this. Obama, Biden and the 55 California electors also are defendants. I assume that the defendants will waive their right to respond, which has been the case in all previous birther cases which have made it to SCOTUS.

  5. avatar
    Daniel May 14, 2011 at 12:20 am #

    JD Reed:
    So what kind of remedy could the Supremes fashion if they were to actually hear the case and render a decision?

    A sympathy hug?

  6. avatar
    Joey May 14, 2011 at 12:21 am #

    From post #89 in the Keyes v Bowen thread on freerepublic.com:
    “To: Ha Ha Thats Very Logical

    I’ve tried to look it up, but all I could find was a place that said Hamilton’s wording was only in his own papers and was never in an actual draft. In which case, it’s possible that both he and Jay had the same thing in mind and meant the same thing by their words. I find it interesting that Jay underlined the word “born” in his letter, suggesting that “born a citizen” was what he found most important.
    Still dancing on a head of a pin against all odds.

    Listening to OBots like Dr. CONspiracy who are deluded won’t get you anywhere.

    Hamilton’ draft was used as a basis for the US Constitution at the Federal Convention in 1787. FR has referenced it in the past as here:”

  7. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 14, 2011 at 12:48 am #

    So let me see if I have this straight – California will fail to file a response after which the SCOTUS will fail to order a response from either side after which cert will be denied without comment. Which wont stop the birthers from believing that THIS time things will be different… Is that about how it will go?

  8. avatar
    misha May 14, 2011 at 12:57 am #

    JD Reed: So what kind of remedy could the Supremes fashion if they were to actually hear the case and render a decision?

    Daniel: A sympathy hug?

    I feel your pain, man. Keep the faith, baby.

  9. avatar
    Joey May 14, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    Slartibartfast:
    So let me see if I have this straight – California will fail to file a response after which the SCOTUS will fail to order a response from either side after which cert will be denied without comment.Which wont stop the birthers from believing that THIS time things will be different…Is that about how it will go?

    Birfoons believe that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have just been waiting for the RIGHT case to rule on standing and the fact that actual presidential candidates (Keyes) filed this case will be the magic birfer bullet!

  10. avatar
    Chris May 14, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    This is a slam dunk for denial of cert. As I understand it, there isn’t even a federal question in this case. The issue was whether the California Secretary of State had a duty to disqualify from the ballot Presidential candidates who did not meet eligibility requirements. This is a question of state law, thus it is doubtful that SCOTUS would even have jurisdiction to take up this case.

  11. avatar
    misha May 14, 2011 at 11:38 am #

    JD Reed: So what kind of remedy could the Supremes fashion

    Stop! In The Name Of Love
    My World Is Empty Without You
    Someday We’ll Be Together

  12. avatar
    aarrgghh May 14, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    Joey: Birfoons believe that the conservatives on the Supreme Court have just been waiting for the RIGHT case to rule on standing and the fact that actual presidential candidates (Keyes) filed this case will be the magic birfer bullet!

    which only further shows (as if we didn’t already have enough evidence) how thoroughly lame the birfer school of law is at actually practicing law.

    suppose in fact there does exists a usurper-killing legal stratagem that the supreme court already knows about and are anxiously waiting for the birfer justice league to present them so that they can finally save the constitution, restore america and, last but not least, bring a righteous hammer down on the most shameless conman (and all-round illegal alien muslim commie thug and playpal of terrorists everywhere) in history.

    curiously, in all of three years, not one of these geniuses — not orly, not kreep, not apuzzo, not kerchner, not lakin, etc, etc — have figured it out yet.

    but keep whacking at it, lads, i’m sure you’ll hit it any day now.

    yes, any day now …

  13. avatar
    Bob May 14, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    It’s like watching a person run into a brick wall . . . over and over and over.

  14. avatar
    ASK Esq May 14, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    I’m going to do my best Karnak here and predict, word for word, what the Court will say in regards to this case:

    Certiorari denied.

  15. avatar
    G May 14, 2011 at 5:39 pm #

    misha: Stop! In The Name Of LoveMy World Is Empty Without YouSomeday We’ll Be Together

    😉

  16. avatar
    Majority Will May 14, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    ASK Esq:
    I’m going to do my best Karnak here and predict, word for word, what the Court will say in regards to this case:

    Certiorari denied.

    You’re amazing!

  17. avatar
    gorefan May 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm #

    Joey: Hamilton’ draft was used as a basis for the US Constitution at the Federal Convention in 1787. FR has referenced it in the past as here:”

    This is a mistake that the birthers like rxsid always make. They confuse Hamilton’s June 18, 1787 plan with a draft constitution that he gave to Madison at the end of the Constitutional Convention.

    The June 18th plan did not have a presidential eligiblity clause. It didn’t even have a president, it had a Governour, who served a life term.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    Birthers sure get confused over the simplest stuff

  18. avatar
    AnotherBird May 14, 2011 at 11:23 pm #

    I never realized how busy the SCOTUS really was. There maybe many more “Keyes v Bowen” that we haven’t heard of.

  19. avatar
    bob May 16, 2011 at 12:20 pm #

    AnotherBird:
    I never realized how busy the SCOTUS really was. There maybe many more “Keyes v Bowen” that we haven’t heard of.

    To recap:

    Superior court dismisses at the pleading stage for failing to plead a cause of action.
    California Court of Appeal affirms, 3-0.
    California Supreme Court denies petition of review, without comment, 7-0.

    …Expect the usual, simple cert. denial from SCOTUS.