Main Menu

Supreme Obot?

I had the opportunity to preview a podcast of the Reality Check Radio Show, something new for them and different from the live show. The show with eyewitness accounts of the Grinols case is available now:

Listen to internet radio with RCRadio on Blog Talk Radio

Towards the end Sterngard made a remark that I found hugely funny. He suggested that Orly Taitz might seek a restraining order from the Court against Chief Justice Roberts to prevent him from swearing in Barack Obama. The suggestion seemed so totally outrageous, while just the kind of thing Taitz might do, that I had to laugh out loud.

Taitz hasn’t followed that bit of advice yet, but something rather close to it has turned up. I found this at The National Memo web site, an article titled: “Today In Crazy: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts For Swearing In Obama, Say Birthers.” Where did they find the crazy birthers who came up with that? At WorldNetDaily, of course. WND’s article by Craige McMillan is “An open letter to the honorable chief justice” and it says:

If you now administer the oath of office for the presidency to a man who by his own admission fails to meet the natural born citizen requirement imposed by that Constitution, you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment by any House of Representatives, at any time, now or in the future.

We recall that birther attorney Larry Klayman also threatened to seek indictments against Justices Roberts and Kagan last June.

Print Friendly

, , , , , ,

43 Responses to Supreme Obot?

  1. avatar
    misha marinsky January 8, 2013 at 12:00 am #

    “you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment”
    “birther attorney Larry Klayman also threatened to seek indictments against Justices Roberts and Kagan”

    Oooo…please do so. The entertainment value will be priceless. Popcorn.

  2. avatar
    The Magic M January 8, 2013 at 5:10 am #

    Well, I suppose when birthers run out of ideas how to enjoin Obama from staying President, they will inevitably turn to auxiliary targets – including the judges who ruled against them.

    It’s crank 101. Apart from being simple vengeance, it is born from the belief that if the crank wins such an auxiliary case (“Judge Z clearly was committing treason by dismissing the birfer lawsuit”), it will give him a do-over of the original case.

    E.g. the common crank will first exhaust his legal options against his prime target, then target any judge who ruled against him and any DA who refused to prosecute both the prime target (“for defrauding me in court”) and the judges (“for aiding and abetting said fraud”).
    The only difference between common crank behaviour and birtherism is the sequence of the auxiliary actions. Common cranks first target judges and DA’s with their lawsuits, then try to get politicians in the mix using the “misprision of …” approach; birthers started with the latter and may finish (yeah, right ;)) with the former.

  3. avatar
    Paul January 8, 2013 at 3:17 pm #

    Interesting… I emailed Stephanie Deutsch, Judge England’s clerk, to give her a heads-up that her name and telephone and email and everything she writes was being posted on Oily’s site, and I followed it up with a quote and a link to a comment by one of Oily’s FMs advising her to hide a recorder in her purse. I got a nice “thank you” back from her. I wonder if that’s why the judge was so adamant right at the top that there will be no recording devices. I know that’s a standard warning, but he seemed to really want to be sure everyone understood.

  4. avatar
    donna January 8, 2013 at 3:25 pm #

    orly is requesting the transcript & audio tape

    Dear Kelly,

    I did not get a response yesterday. Please, call me at 949-683-5411, so I can give you my credit card for the transcript. also, please advise me, who is in charge, who should I talk to about purchase of a copy of the audio tape of the proceedings, which is mandatory in every federal court

  5. avatar
    Scientist January 8, 2013 at 5:41 pm #

    If Roberts were impeached, wouldn’t Obama get to select his replacement?

  6. avatar
    Thomas Brown January 8, 2013 at 5:45 pm #

    Scientist:
    If Roberts were impeached, wouldn’t Obama get to select his replacement?

    Birther logic? Check!

  7. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 8, 2013 at 6:02 pm #

    eh …. what’s the point of impeaching Roberts for administering the oath, again? That wouldn’t retroactively ‘unswear’ Obama and make him disappear (thereby elevating Biden LOL )

    It would be a (imaginary) means of removing the “Obamacare traitor.”

    Obsessing over perceived slights for months, years … wingers aren’t that petty.

    Are they? ;)

  8. avatar
    Supreme Nutcases @RC January 8, 2013 at 6:41 pm #

    The RC link is a major laugh. There’s someone in the audio that sounds like a great attorney, UGH! … is that person Shlepper, the guy that says that the BC, SSN, or Selective Service documents are not “identity” documents? Really can this be true?

    Isn’t Shlepper the genius with 40 years of being a whatever, and is as astute in the practice of law as Orly is ? Naw! Shlepper can’t compete with Orly… she knows a phony Selective Service document when she sees it, but Shlepper is totally confused when it comes to knowing the difference of having four digit years vice two digit years on a Selective Service registration document. How strange is it to have two different postal stamp date formats for the same year as proof of an individual registering for the service? OH! we know…it’s Shlepper MAGIC…brouhaha :-(

    And the RC character named “boob” … is this one a genius too? Is he a genius that can’t understand that when a court says that there isn’t a requirement for a POTUS candidate to provide any identification to be POTUS, but “boob” forgets the fact that an attorney responded to the judge that there isn’t any constitutional requirement to have a pulse,, or a hear beat , either.

    In Constitutional law… there are many cases where the “implied” authority, and functional authority exist… like when providing printing presses to print America’s dollars, an activity of purchasing printing presses that are NOT authorized for the treasury to purchase to carry out the treasury’s mission.

    Of course there isn’t any constitutional edict that says that America’s military should have guns, or cannons or whatever they need to fight a war, so let the military just go to war and stand there in front of the enemy until someone can prove that they should have the IMPLIED tools necessary to fight a war.

    To be POTUS it’s required to be an American citizen with specific constitutional requirements… and with certain conditions for various other kinds of citizens that are required to become that other kind of American citizen.

    All in all though! American has the very first POTUS that is almost a duplicate of Batman’s arch enemy the “joker”… almost an exact double if one it to really take a hard look at him, but there is a difference between the two mentioned, isn’t there?

  9. avatar
    GLaB January 8, 2013 at 6:44 pm #

    The Magic M:
    Well, I suppose when birthers run out of ideas how to enjoin Obama from staying President, they will inevitably turn to auxiliary targets – including the judges who ruled against them.

    It’s crank 101. Apart from being simple vengeance, it is born from the belief that if the crank wins such an auxiliary case (“Judge Z clearly was committing treason by dismissing the birfer lawsuit”), it will give him a do-over of the original case.

    E.g. the common crank will first exhaust his legal options against his prime target, then target any judge who ruled against him and any DA who refused to prosecute both the prime target (“for defrauding me in court”) and the judges (“for aiding and abetting said fraud”).
    The only difference between common crank behaviour and birtherism is the sequence of the auxiliary actions. Common cranks first target judges and DA’s with their lawsuits, then try to get politicians in the mix using the “misprision of …” approach; birthers started with the latter and may finish (yeah, right ) with the former.

    It’s already been done, I think. I seem to remember Taitz naming one or more of her favorite judges in her MS RICO suit.

  10. avatar
    Paul January 8, 2013 at 6:46 pm #

    aesthetocyst:
    eh …. what’s the point of impeaching Roberts for administering the oath, again? That wouldn’t retroactively ‘unswear’ Obama and make him disappear (thereby elevating Biden LOL )

    It would be a (imaginary) means of removing the “Obamacare traitor.”

    Obsessing over perceived slights for months, years … wingers aren’t that petty.

    Are they?

    And then they could make a deal — Biden gets sworn in, names Obama as his VP, Biden resigns, Obama is back as POTUS, and he names Biden as his VP!!

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 8, 2013 at 7:20 pm #

    Not having a heart beat or brain activity is called “death” and it is covered in the Constitution.

    Supreme Nutcases @RC: Is he a genius that can’t understand that when a court says that there isn’t a requirement for a POTUS candidate to provide any identification to be POTUS, but “boob” forgets the fact that an attorney responded to the judge that there isn’t any constitutional requirement to have a pulse,, or a hear beat , either.

  12. avatar
    Reality Check January 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

    Glad to know I have another listener!

  13. avatar
    Keith January 8, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

    Supreme Nutcases @RC: The RC link is a major laugh. There’s someone in the audio that sounds like a great attorney, UGH! … is that person Shlepper, the guy that says that the BC, SSN, or Selective Service documents are not “identity” documents? Really can this be true?

    Yes indeed it is quite true! BC’s, SSN Cards, and Selective Service documents are NOT identity documents. They are evidence of an event occuring (birth, Selective Service registration, etc). But they have no information that ties the document to a person that is holding it and cannot be used to establish a person’s identity. A driver’s license or a passport both have photos – they are identity documents. It really isn’t that hard or complicated and you don’t have to be a great attorney to understand.

    Supreme Nutcases @RC: Shlepper can’t compete with Orly…

    In what? Makeup application? I only ask because Orly isn’t even in the same league as Tepper in the lawyering business.

    Supreme Nutcases @RC: And the RC character named “boob” … is this one a genius too? Is he a genius that can’t understand that when a court says that there isn’t a requirement for a POTUS candidate to provide any identification to be POTUS, but “boob” forgets the fact that an attorney responded to the judge that there isn’t any constitutional requirement to have a pulse,, or a hear beat , either.

    And did you notice that the ‘attorney’ that told the “judge that there isn’t any constitution requirement to have a pulse” clearly hadn’t read the Constitution? Perhaps if you meet that ‘attorney’ some time you could point out that the 25th Amendment does indeed have exactly that requirement.

    Supreme Nutcases @RC: All in all though! American has the very first POTUS that is almost a duplicate of Batman’s arch enemy the “joker”… almost an exact double if one it to really take a hard look at him, but there is a difference between the two mentioned, isn’t there?

    Well the most recent ‘Joker’ was a Natural Born Australian Citizen and the President is a Natural Born American Citizen. Is that the difference you mean?

  14. avatar
    The Magic M January 9, 2013 at 5:52 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Not having a heart beat or brain activity is called “death” and it is covered in the Constitution.

    Though a zombie president would be an interesting legal conundrum. I wonder what SCOTUS would say about it. (In the “what if” world that ignores the 25th.)

  15. avatar
    Ignore January 9, 2013 at 10:14 am #

    Keith has to be mentally deficient to have posted the ridiculous blurbs on this web site that had to do with documents being used to establish an identity. The fact is that the person named Shlepper did send a letter to a judge stating that his court room utterances re: documents NOT being evidence was in error.

    Sheppler the 40 year genius must have Alzheimer’s problems to have made that statement to a judge. In the same letter to the judge where Alzheimer Shlepper reversed his idiotic “identity” statement he tried to weasel out from making that comment by referring to some imaginary cases that purportedly supported his Alzheimer supported ignorant ‘identity’ comment made to the court.

    The other immature comments made by the ‘intellectually bankrupt’ Keith need not be commented on… take them for what they are. They are just ignorant ramblings proffered by a mentally deficient adolescent cretin.

  16. avatar
    Arthur January 9, 2013 at 10:29 am #

    Keith,

    You appear to have conjured Nut Case’s evil twin. Best to just Ignore him.

  17. avatar
    Majority Will January 9, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    Arthur:
    Keith,

    You appear to have conjured Nut Case’s evil twin. Best to just Ignore him.

    Although, once again, neither irony nor hypocrisy meters are safe.

  18. avatar
    Daniel January 9, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    So Ignore, being as you are so much Keith’s superior… perhaps you can tell me, how have you fares in court with your birther ideas?

  19. avatar
    bovril January 9, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    Dear “Ignore” and “Supreme Foobar”

    Could you please explain to the wider audience exactly why it is that in over 200 cases, by judges over pretty much every color, hue, gender, rank, seniority and political persuasion there is, have all thrown out every single Birfoon case..?

    Whilst you are at that, could you explain why it is that in each an every one of these cases the anti-Birfoons have been on point not only on the end result but also have repeatedly forecast the exact reasons the cases have all failed?

    Seems like the anti-Birthers aren’t the ones with the mental deficiencies and adolescent drool…..

  20. avatar
    Crustacean January 9, 2013 at 3:48 pm #

    Ignore: The fact is that the person named Shlepper did send a letter to a judge stating that his court room utterances re: documents NOT being evidence was in error

    Isn’t it cute when an ignoramus tries to sound like an interlektural? (sorry, I try to avoid the name-calling, but when you throw the first stone, well, best be ready to duck.)

    Ignore: ignorant ramblings proffered by a mentally deficient adolescent cretin

    Couldn’t agree more, Iggy!!

  21. avatar
    Arthur January 10, 2013 at 10:07 am #

    What are birthers saying about Orly’s chances at the Supreme Court? Over at ORYR, it’s a mixed bag. Some are holding out hope, but others seem frustrated. One person wrote, “I expect nothing to come of the hearing except for the Oily Taint to make an ass of herself before the justices.” That comment drew this response: “Should that happen it would be the final confirmation that the country has been murdered and it’s time to start killing all of our political adversaries. Otherwise – you will be killed.” What was the reaction to a call for mass murder? There’s been one comment: “Eh…that’s a bit extreme.”

    Ya’ think?!

  22. avatar
    Jim January 10, 2013 at 11:19 am #

    misha marinsky:
    “you have violated your own oath of office and are rightly subject to impeachment”
    “birther attorney Larry Klayman also threatened to seek indictments against Justices Roberts and Kagan”

    Oooo…please do so. The entertainment value will be priceless. Popcorn.

    You know, for all these folks trying to get Obama out of the WH because they imagine he’s not eligible via the constitution…it’s amazing how few of them have actually read and understood the constitution.

  23. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 10, 2013 at 11:39 am #

    Arthur: Ya’ think?!

    Taitz making an ass of herself is cause for yawning, not violent revolution.

    Keybored warriors, every ready to get a purge on at the drop of a hat. (Supposedly)

    I can outrun a Hoveround, so I’m safe.

  24. avatar
    Arthur January 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    aesthetocyst: Keybored warriors, every ready to get a purge on at the drop of a hat. (Supposedly)

    I can outrun a Hoveround, so I’m safe.

    Wait a minute . . . are you suggesting that birthers are all talk and no action? Little more than decrepit cry babies, who stamp their feet and pound their keyboards, but never accomplish anything? The nerve! And as for that Hoveround crack, I’ll have you know that not all birthers are recumbent–many can still make it to their mailboxes, and I’ve heard that some still DRIVE (although not at night). So don’t you DARE impugn these passionate patriots with your Alinsky sarcasm!!!

  25. avatar
    Dave January 10, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    At Taitz’s blog, her post about Roberts’ referral of her stay application to the Court has presently over a hundred ecstatic comments. They see this routine action as some kind of headline news.

    Birthers certainly excel at setting themselves up for disappointment.

    Arthur:
    What are birthers saying about Orly’s chances at the Supreme Court?

  26. avatar
    The Magic M January 11, 2013 at 4:14 am #

    Dave: has presently over a hundred ecstatic comments

    Make that 300+.

    Dave: They see this routine action as some kind of headline news.

    Orly obviously does so she can claim one of her rare “victories” and also so she can go “they wanted to hear me, but then Obama got to them” when cert is inevitably denied.

    For her followers, it is of utmost importance to have their regular OMG moments to survive.

  27. avatar
    The Magic M January 11, 2013 at 4:19 am #

    Ignore:
    [...] Shlepper
    [...] Sheppler

    Oh look, it’s the childish game of “turning your name into something funny” again. I wonder if most birthers are below the age of 12…

  28. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 11, 2013 at 9:05 am #

    The Magic M: I wonder if most birthers are below the age of 12…

    Physically no, mentally yes.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will January 11, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    aesthetocyst: Physically no, mentally yes.

    I disagree to a point. The skills that are lacking are social and emotional. They lack empathy driven by close minded ness and a life of paranoia and fear.

  30. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 11, 2013 at 9:58 am #

    OK, physically no; emotional, socially, mentally, yes. ;)

    Time and again, the hardest of the hardcore, the deadest of the dead ends, turns out to be an older person on the decline, or a young isolated person lashing out. Usually the former.

    We’re all human; they’re trying to meet basic psychological needs (attention, security, importance, meaning) in negative ways.

  31. avatar
    Rickey January 11, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    aesthetocyst:

    Time and again, the hardest of the hardcore, the deadest of the dead ends, turns out to be an older person on the decline, or a young isolated person lashing out. Usually the former.

    We’re all human; they’re trying to meet basic psychological needs (attention, security, importance, meaning) in negative ways.

    To the extent that I have checked them out, the majority are older white males. Hermitian, for example, is 61. Corsi, Strunk, Vogt, Irey, Epperly, MacLeran, Swennson, etc. all seem to fit that profile. Farah is 58 years old.

    One notable exception is John, who apparently is in his early 30s. I believe that John’s primary motivation is religion rather than racism. It appears to me that John is fervently anti-abortion, and that is probably what drives him.

  32. avatar
    Hermitian January 12, 2013 at 8:19 am #

    Did I miss something? I thought that the White House was supposed to announce yesterday that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to swear in Obama again. But id didn’t happen! Unless it was in the wee hours of another Friday night which of course how all non-Obama-flattering announcements come out of the White House.

  33. avatar
    Hermitian January 12, 2013 at 8:31 am #

    Dave:
    At Taitz’s blog, her post about Roberts’ referral of her stay application to the Court has presently over a hundred ecstatic comments. They see this routine action as some kind of headline news.

    Birthers certainly excel at setting themselves up for disappointment.

    Wonder how Roberts is going to skip over that judicial ethics thingy and swear in Obama in spite of having just scheduled the SCOTUS conference on his eligibility case for after the inauguration?

  34. avatar
    Dave January 12, 2013 at 11:01 am #

    You’d have to clarify how this infringes judicial ethics — does your version of ethics require Roberts to assume now that Taitz will win the case? — but let me take this opportunity to clear up a few misconceptions.

    What Taitz has filed is not a cert petition. It is an application for a stay. Frankly, I haven’t bothered to find out what she wants stayed, but a stay application is supposed to accompany a cert petition. What lies between where we are and Taitz winning this case is that she has to submit a cert petition, it has to be selected by the Court for hearing, then the hearing has to take place, then the Justices have to rule in her favor. But she still hasn’t even submitted the cert petition.

    The other thing that would help you understand what’s really going on is that when a stay application is resubmitted after being denied (as this one was) it is routine practice to refer it to the Court. Which is why I was mocking the birthers for seeing this as a victory. It isn’t. It’s just the completely routine next step toward this being denied.

    Also, while Taitz obviously has zero chance of winning this case no matter what, the point of a stay application is to stop something very important from happening when the case can’t possibly be decided fast enough to stop it. How does it look to the Justices if Taitz can’t even be bothered to submit her cert petition? If this doesn’t matter enough to her to get off her butt and submit a cert petition, how are the Justices supposed to take her emergency seriously?

    Hermitian: Wonder how Roberts is going to skip over that judicial ethics thingy and swear in Obamain spite of having just scheduled the SCOTUS conference on his eligibility case for after the inauguration?

  35. avatar
    Dave January 12, 2013 at 11:13 am #

    Having reread Hermitian’s comment, I see another possible misconception. He says Roberts “just scheduled the SCOTUS conference on his eligibility case” which perhaps implies a belief that this conference was specially set up for Taitz’s stay application.

    To clarify, it wasn’t. At SCOTUS a series of conferences are scheduled at the beginning of the term. As stuff comes in that requires a vote of the Justices, such as selecting cert petitions for hearing, it is assigned to one of these conferences. And that’s what has happened to this stay application.

  36. avatar
    Arthur January 12, 2013 at 11:14 am #

    Hermitian: Did I miss something? I thought that the White House was supposed to announce yesterday that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to swear in Obama again.

    I didn’t see anything either! Let’s see, if Roberts doesn’t do it, then maybe, just maybe, no one will agree to swear in Obama and then John Boehner could . . . OMG! Somebody get me in touch with john!

  37. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 12, 2013 at 12:16 pm #

    Hermitian: Did I miss something? I thought that the White House was supposed to announce yesterday that Chief Justice John Roberts is going to swear in Obama again.

    Birfer says what? More pick-and-choose reality! It wasn’t announced yesterday (1/11) because it was announced the previous Friday (1/4), the day the electoral votes were certified. Did you have a rough New Year’s week, Herms?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/04/barack-obama-john-roberts-inaugural-swearing-in/1808525/

  38. avatar
    Sef January 12, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Rickey: It appears to me that John is fervently anti-abortion, and that is probably what drives him.

    Maybe he shouldn’t get one, then.

  39. avatar
    Majority Will January 12, 2013 at 1:32 pm #

    Rickey: To the extent that I have checked them out, the majority are older white males. Hermitian, for example, is 61. Corsi, Strunk, Vogt, Irey, Epperly, MacLeran, Swennson, etc. all seem to fit that profile. Farah is 58 years old.

    One notable exception is John, who apparently is in his early 30s. I believe that John’s primary motivation is religion rather than racism. It appears to me that John is fervently anti-abortion, and that is probably what drives him.

    I love that part of the Bible that names all of the people who get to decide who is Christian. They beget each other.

  40. avatar
    Rickey January 12, 2013 at 2:47 pm #

    Hermitian: Wonder how Roberts is going to skip over that judicial ethics thingy and swear in Obamain spite of having just scheduled the SCOTUS conference on his eligibility case for after the inauguration?

    There is no ethics issue. Orly’s application has zero chance of being accepted. Even if there were any merit to it, the application is moot.

    Noonan v. Bowen is a petition filed in California Superior Court which asks for a writ to prevent the Obama campaign from raising funds in California and to prevent Obama’s name from being on the November ballot. The fundraising is over, the election has been held, the electors have voted, and Congress has certified the results. A week from tomorrow Obama will be sworn in for another term, and Orly’s application for a stay will be formally denied following the February 15 conference.

    You can take that to the bank.

  41. avatar
    Rickey January 12, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    Dave:
    Having reread Hermitian’s comment, I see another possible misconception. He says Roberts “just scheduled the SCOTUS conference on his eligibility case” which perhaps implies a belief that this conference was specially set up for Taitz’s stay application.

    To clarify, it wasn’t. At SCOTUS a series of conferences are scheduled at the beginning of the term. As stuff comes in that requires a vote of the Justices, such as selecting cert petitions for hearing, it is assigned to one of these conferences. And that’s what has happened to this stay application.

    That’s correct. February 15 is a regularly-scheduled conference date. Orly’s application is one of dozens which will be denied.

  42. avatar
    Judge Mental January 12, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    Just in case anyone doesn’t realise what her “stay” application consists of, it is this….

    1. A stay of certification of results of the California election for the U.S. Senate pending resolution of primary election results and of one and a half million invalid voter registrations.

    2. A stay of certification of presidential election in California and certification of any and all votes for candidate Obama pending resolution of the issue of his legitimacy for the U.S. Presidency in light of his Indonesian citizenship, due to the fact that according to his mother’s passport records his last name is Soebarkah and he is seeking to become a U.S. President under a name that is not legally his and due to his use of forged IDs, specifically a forged birth certificate, forged Selective Service Certificate and a fraudulently obtained Connecticut Social Security number as proof of his identity.

    The moot aspects alone render this virtually certainly denied. Additionally, what is known about Scotus procedures indicates that if by some miracle this application is actually put on the ‘discuss’ list (as opposed to just on the routine conference list) the Bowen camp will be asked very soon by Scotus for a response to the stay application. If they aren’t asked for a response we’ll know that even the 1 million to odds wouldn’t be good value for its chances of being discussed and that it is absolutely definitely dead in the water.

  43. avatar
    LW January 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm #

    Majority Will: I love that part of the Bible that names all of the people who get to decide who is Christian.

    Remember: according to Billo, Christianity is not a religion. It’s like a, a… fan club, or Facebook page, or something.