Main Menu

Taitz: Supreme to rule “any day”

There is a story about a little girl who was an optimist. The girl wanted a pony for Christmas and was confident she would get one. Her parents, thinking her optimism was so extreme as to be unhealthy, decided to cure her. On Christmas morning the little girl went outside to find a huge pile of manure with a bow on it. The girl grabbed a shovel and started digging frantically. When asked what she was doing, she replied: “with all this manure, there’s sure to be a pony here somewhere.”

I was reminded of that story of irrational optimism upon receipt today of Orly Taitz’ latest media blaster email, the title of which is:

Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Supreme Court of the U.S. is set to rule any day on Noonan, Judd, MacLeran v Bowen filed December 11, 2012, 6 days before the electoral college meeting

I don’t know why it takes 6 days for her selected articles to appear in my mailbox, but this one from December 13 is particularly appropriate, now that the State of California has already certified and sent in its 55 electoral votes for Barack Obama.

Orly is right, though. Justice Kennedy was anxious to review the case.

Application denied by Justice Kennedy

, ,

11 Responses to Taitz: Supreme to rule “any day”

  1. avatar
    LW December 19, 2012 at 5:26 pm #

    …now that the State of California has already certified and sent in its 55 electoral votes for Barack Obama.

    Yep, and here’s the certificate (one of nine posted at this point):

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2012-certificates/pdfs/vote-california.pdf

    Some points I think Orly should get right on:

    • The document has nasty, nasty LAYERSES. By which I mean “there’s more than one element on each page.” Especially damning: I personally don’t have any idea why they’re there. I’m an expert by virtue of having opened the document in a PDF editor, so, forgery.

    • Three of the originally-named electors apparently didn’t show up (why wouldn’t you show up for something like this? Seriously, this is freaking history you’re passing up on), so they elected three replacement electors on the spot. As conclusively proven in Herp v. Derp, this is Kenyan Marxist fraudulence.

    • Two of the electors signed in blue ink. This is either a clear bat-signal to Those Who Know, or possibly it’s just tacky. Orly should contact Miss Manners, and then name her in all future ReECkO filings.

  2. avatar
    richCares December 19, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    in anticipation of this ruling, Time Magazine named Obama as Man of the Year, put that in your pipe and smoke it birthers.

  3. avatar
    US Citizen December 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm #

    That story seems to be an analog of “fishing for gold coins in a bucket of mud.” :)

  4. avatar
    donna December 26, 2012 at 7:04 pm #

    chief justice to rule?

    any day now …………

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Noonan-SCOTUS-Chief-Justice-John-Roberts1.jpg

    comment: Perseverance pays off. Perhaps now that the reelection is at stake there will be something done because the fraud is so blatantly obvious now. They will be dealing with this next year if not now.

    Breaking news, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts to rule on Noonan, MacLeran, Judd, Taitz v Bowen

    after scrolling through blah …….. blah…….., including [t]he only time a postal stamp was found with a two digit year, is on Obama’s Elective Service certificate, Attorney Taitz had to send a check for $753.20 for each official to fly from DC to CA to the hearing. Taitz sent a check for $975.40 for Obama to fly from Hawaii, where he is vacationing. . Public is asked to assist Attorney Taitz with donations to cover enormous expenses of these cases, which she is prosecuting pro bono.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=371190

  5. avatar
    Keith December 26, 2012 at 8:42 pm #

    donna: Breaking news, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States John Roberts to rule on Noonan, MacLeran, Judd, Taitz v Bowen

    It is my understanding that when it comes to the Supreme Court, one judge does not rule. The entire court rules – they have a vote and the majority opinion is the ruling.

    Roberts can’t do it by himself.

  6. avatar
    donna December 26, 2012 at 10:21 pm #

    i believe it takes 4 justices to grant cert

    one justice to request a reply from defendants

  7. avatar
    Keith December 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm #

    One justice requesting a reply from defendants does not constitute a ruling.

    Any justice may ask the defendants and the petitioner for more information about a petition. After review of that information the justice may add a case to the ‘discuss list’. If, after discussion at the cert pool conference, four of the nine justices agree that the petition is worthy of consideration by the full court then, and only then, will a “writ of certiorari” be issued.

    Such a writ is NOT a ruling, and it does NOT mean that the Court agrees or disagrees with the petitioner. It just means that the court will hear the case.

    If no justices request more information about a case, it is automatically rejected and doesn’t even make it to conference.

    Justice Roberts on his own can not make a ruling and cannot grant Cert. All he can do is express interest in the case, ask for more information, bring it to conference, and try to convince 3 other justices that it is worthy of consideration by the full court.

    He cannot make a ruling by himself. Requesting information is NOT a ruling.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 27, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    And one justice, I think, could issue a temporary restraining order.

    donna: one justice to request a reply from defendants

  9. avatar
    donna December 27, 2012 at 10:01 am #

    doc: And one justice, I think, could issue a temporary restraining order.

    as an example: Sotomayor, who hears emergency appeals from the 10th Circuit, said it was not “indisputably clear” that Hobby Lobby and Mardel deserved an injunction, noting that lower courts have been divided in similar cases on whether temporary relief is proper.

    “Even without an injunction pending appeal, the applicants may continue their challenge to the regulations in the lower courts,” and following a final judgment ask the Supreme Court at that time to consider their appeal, she said.

    Sotomayor did not rule on the merits of the companies’ religious-based claims.

    http://news.yahoo.com/justice-sotomayor-refuses-block-contraceptives-mandate-010308206–finance.html

  10. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG December 27, 2012 at 10:41 am #

    And one justice to rule them all!

    …sorry.

  11. avatar
    Jim December 27, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    Public is asked to assist Attorney Taitz with donations to cover enormous expenses of these cases, which she is prosecuting pro bono.

    Every time I see this about Taitz I think she’s not prosecuting pro bono…she’s wasting the court’s time pro bonehead.