Main Menu

Future news: Supreme Court rejects Taitz plea

In a tersely worded decision later today, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision to let stand the California electoral votes for Barack Obama. The Court failed to be persuaded by Taitz’ allegations of stolen social-security numbers and forged Selective Service applications, and they remained unmoved by Taitz’ threats of treason charges against them. The stay requested by Taitz in the case of Noonan v. Bowen was not granted, leaving Barack Obama securely in the position of President of the United States.

In a related story, the Court also announced that it had denied cert in the case of Sibley v. Obama.

Given that it’s a foregone conclusion, I thought I might as well write the article, and scoop the competition.

image

Birthers deny that the Supreme Court even saw the case, and don’t read their own orders.

Print Friendly

,

110 Responses to Future news: Supreme Court rejects Taitz plea

  1. avatar
    The Magic M February 19, 2013 at 3:53 am #

    Birther: “Just another proof the fix is in.”

    Whatever happened to the RWNJ meme “some TV station displayed the 11/5 election results two days too early”? ;-)

  2. avatar
    Norbrook February 19, 2013 at 7:18 am #

    You know, you could fund a lot of things just by getting the birthers to take bets on these court decisions. ;-)

  3. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 7:55 am #

    It would be funny if “Before Its News” picked up this article.

    I have tried wagers with Birthers like Mark Gillar. When it comes to parting with their money they suddenly get more realistic and shut up.

    Norbrook:
    You know, you could fund a lot of things just by getting the birthers to take bets on these court decisions.

  4. avatar
    JPotter February 19, 2013 at 9:22 am #

    How is Orly’s penmanship?

    Inmate’s handwritten request will get a rare hearing before Supreme Court
    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/27/169915/inmates-handwritten-request-will.html

    Birfer logic: if it worked for one longshot …

    Longshot law recommends:

    Big Chief writing tablets
    My First Ticonderogas
    Pink Pearl erasers

  5. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 19, 2013 at 9:27 am #

    You do of course realize that this will further convince hundreds of birthers that you are part of the conspiracy?

  6. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 9:34 am #

    SCOTUSBlog is reporting the orders released. Nothing on Orly, which almost certainly means “Denied” – confirmation when they post the full list.

  7. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 9:35 am #

    (Review granted in a campaign finance case and an overtime pay case)

  8. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 9:37 am #

    12A606 NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE

    The applications for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and
    referred to the Court are denied.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/021913zor_19m1.pdf

  9. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 9:40 am #

    Wow, I heard that screech all the way here in Michigan!

  10. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 9:48 am #

    No sanctions, though.

  11. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2013 at 9:54 am #

    I told you so.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2013 at 10:05 am #

    Of course not. Didn’t you read my future news article? If there were going to have been sanctions, I would have predicted it.

    W. Kevin Vicklund: No sanctions, though.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2013 at 10:09 am #

    The Court denied cert in Sibley v. Obama also today.

  14. avatar
    alg February 19, 2013 at 10:10 am #

    It’s an obvious cornspiracy.

  15. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 10:20 am #

    i want video proof that it was “referred to the court” –

    before it’s news said: It is REPORTED that the U.S. Supreme Court Law Clerks did not even forward the pleadings to Five of the justices. (emphasis mine)

    and refer you to a list of their own articles

  16. avatar
    Bob February 19, 2013 at 10:35 am #

    Orly’s pretending that there was “no decision.” She’s so childish.

  17. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 10:48 am #

    Someone at Fogbow pointed out that this was Sibley’s motion to expedite that was denied. The denial of the writ for cert is a few weeks away.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Court denied cert in Sibley v. Obama also today.

  18. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 10:50 am #

    The docket has been updated now also. She must have grabbed that screenshot quickly.

    Bob:
    Orly’s pretending that there was “no decision.”She’s so childish.

  19. avatar
    Frank Peters February 19, 2013 at 10:51 am #

    How’d you predict that Orly would not win?

  20. avatar
    Punchmaster via mobile February 19, 2013 at 11:01 am #

    Frank Peters:
    How’d you predict that Orly would not win?

    I suspect that Doc is some kind of sorcerer.

  21. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 11:05 am #

    cert denied

    12-736 SIBLEY, MONTGOMERY B. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

  22. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 11:09 am #

    You are correct Donna. I was reading an older post from January. It is dead.

    donna:
    cert denied

    12-736 SIBLEY, MONTGOMERY B. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

  23. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 19, 2013 at 11:16 am #

    So, is Birtherism finally dead?

  24. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 11:17 am #

    it was a birther blow-out!

  25. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater February 19, 2013 at 11:20 am #

    Frank Peters: How’d you predict that Orly would not win?

    Obviously Doc had one of the unaccouted for Palintirs of Middle Earth.

  26. avatar
    snafubar February 19, 2013 at 11:22 am #

    W. Kevin Vicklund,

    With all due respect, I read the link you provided and here is the listing of cases and their disposition as they appear, with cases before and after NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE. If you note, the case before (12A600) and the case after (12A712) both have been denied.

    However, there is no reference that case 12A606 NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE was denied.

    What say you? :

    12A600 HEDGES, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The application to vacate stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

    12A606 NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE

    12A712 KWASNIK, MAREK A. V. FNMA – The applications for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court are denied.

  27. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    There are several cases where there is a “batch” disposition.

  28. avatar
    Bob February 19, 2013 at 11:26 am #

    Frank Peters:
    How’d you predict that Orly would not win?

    Even the Supreme Court cannot order time to go backwards.

  29. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    Orly’s latest:

    SCOTUS 02.19.2013 order does not state yet whether the case was granted or denied, no decision yet

    So the question is, does Orly not realize:

    A) If consecutive cases have the same order, the order is not stated until after those cases are listed,

    B) She only requested a stay, not a decision on the case

    C) Both

    D) Kumquat gargle muffin

  30. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 11:27 am #

    No. 12A606

    Title:

    Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants

    v.

    Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State

    Docketed:

    December 13, 2012

    Lower Ct:

    Supreme Court of California

    Case Nos.:

    (S207078)

    ~~~Date~~~

    ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Dec 11 2012

    Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.

    Dec 13 2012

    Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.

    Dec 26 2012

    Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.

    Jan 9 2013

    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.

    Jan 9 2013

    Application (12A606) referred to the Court.

    Feb 19 2013

    Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

  31. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund February 19, 2013 at 11:34 am #

    Note the use of singular and plural case throughout. Consecutive cases with identical dispositions are “batched” – rather than repeat the same order for each case (which would make the orders list several times larger), the cases are listed and the order is appended to the end. So the order in Kwasnik is the same as the one in Noonan, but the one in Hedges is different (because it was addressed to Justice Scalia instead of the Chief Justice).

    snafubar:
    W. Kevin Vicklund,

    With alldue respect, I read the link you provided and here is the listing of cases and their disposition as they appear, with cases before and after NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE.If you note, the case before (12A600) and the case after (12A712) both have been denied.

    However, there is no reference that case 12A606NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE was denied.

    What say you?:

    12A600HEDGES, CHRISTOPHER, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.
    The application to vacate stay addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied.

    12A606NOONAN, EDWARD, ET AL. V. BOWEN, CA SEC. OF STATE

    12A712KWASNIK, MAREK A. V. FNMA – The applications for stay addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court are denied.

  32. avatar
    The Magic M February 19, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    W. Kevin Vicklund: Consecutive cases with identical dispositions are “batched”

    Since Orly does not (want to) understand that, we can predict another Orly birther meme “SCOTUS refused to decide eligibility case, left it open because they are afraid”.

  33. avatar
    snafubar February 19, 2013 at 11:38 am #

    ScottRS:

    “I’d say you are being deliberately obstinate, or that you do not know how to read an Order sheet.”

    I’d say that you need to take a chill pill.

    Thanks W. Kevin Vicklund.

  34. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2013 at 11:43 am #

    Bob: Even the Supreme Court cannot order time to go backwards.

    I raise a glass to you. Hear, hear!

  35. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2013 at 11:44 am #

    Thomas Brown: So, is Birtherism finally dead?

    No! Birtherism will never be dead. SATSQ

  36. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 19, 2013 at 11:51 am #

    bgansel9: No! Birtherism will never be dead. SATSQ

    Please to be adjusting sarcasm sensors.

  37. avatar
    justlw February 19, 2013 at 11:53 am #

    Remember: “parents” always means two parents. “Applications” always means one application.

  38. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    Is that image Bender’s Time Code?

  39. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 19, 2013 at 11:57 am #

    My my, the denial is deep today…there are people out on Twitter still claiming that Noonan v. Bowen has not been decided. I now have the docket URL on speed-dial for them…

  40. avatar
    Scientist February 19, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    “The Supreme Court has no authority to review cases and the first Chief Justice was the corrupt conspiracist, John Jay, so nothing they do counts anyway”- Bob Gard

  41. avatar
    justlw February 19, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    “02.19.2013 order from the Supreme Court of the United States does not state whether the case was granted or denied, no answer yet, no treason yet by the justices of the Supreme Court.”

    Orly. Never. Disappoints.

  42. avatar
    Scientist February 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm #

    On to the Hague!!!

  43. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    Never mind, I answered my own question.
    Yes, it is.
    The secret to time travel.

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy February 19, 2013 at 12:02 pm #

    Reality Check:
    The docket has been updated now also. She must have grabbed that screenshot quickly.

    that, and Orly doesn’t know how to read the list of denials (I’m guessing that the denial appearing at the end of all the TRO denied, rather than her getting her very own, she’s doesn’t understand that hers too is denied).

  45. avatar
    snafubar February 19, 2013 at 12:05 pm #

    Parent(s) doesn’t always mean 2 parents. Not today. It could also mean 3 or more parents, I’m sure.

    Sarcasm noted.

  46. avatar
    justlw February 19, 2013 at 12:06 pm #

    snafubar:
    Parent(s) doesn’t always mean 2 parents.Not today.It could also mean 3 or more parents, I’m sure.

    Sarcasm noted.

    Today we are all parents.

  47. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2013 at 12:08 pm #

    Scientist: On to the Hague!!!

    Hell hath no fury like a Moldovan scorned.

  48. avatar
    richCares February 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm #

    “…she’s doesn’t understand that hers too is denied).”
    Orly claims no answer yet then she links to the orders list which clearly shows “denied”
    weird

  49. avatar
    BLOW-HARD February 19, 2013 at 12:12 pm #

    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

  50. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 19, 2013 at 12:15 pm #

    OK, the narrative that the denialists are coalescing on is that Noonan V. Bowen is a petition for a writ of Certorati. 5 seconds of staring at the docket will show that it is not. Here is the docket for Noonan v. Bowen: http://1.usa.gov/XrOPyd And here is a petition for a writ of Certorati: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-10362.htm

  51. avatar
    Arthur February 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

    BLOW-HARD: Let the BLOWHARD

    I say, let BLOWHARD take it on the run.

  52. avatar
    JPotter February 19, 2013 at 12:19 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    I’ll take that wager, and many others will as well! Can I take more than one ticket? Is there a purchase limit? Just how much capital do you have to waste?

  53. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    There were impostors in the White House, but that was more than three years ago.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/3106263/White-House-impostors-met-Obama

  54. avatar
    Punchmaster via mobile February 19, 2013 at 12:20 pm #

    Horus:
    Is that image Bender’s Time Code?

    Doc had some serious geek cred!

  55. avatar
    justlw February 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    Hmm. Current facts. Trial by jury. Cold Case Posse. Yes, where is that trial by jury, what with all them current facts the CCP has?

  56. avatar
    Bob February 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    She now has three posts up pretending that there was no decision.

  57. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    Facts, you say? Your opinion does not equate with facts.

  58. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 12:22 pm #

    When you get that trial maybe we can talk. :lol:

    BTW: Fake grand juries meeting at Denny’s don’t count.

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

  59. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    I hate to be the Technical Geek on here, especially when the premise is based on fiction, a fictional cartoon that takes place in the future no less.
    But, doesn’t that code only work for going Back in time and not Forward?
    Gawd, I spend too much time watching cartoons.

  60. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 12:24 pm #

    Graham Shevlin:

    credible sources? how dare you?

    her latest: We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=392959

  61. avatar
    snafubar February 19, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    justlw:

    “Today we are all parents.”

    I am not my brothers keeper. Sorry. I have enough to take care of without having to be the keeper of someone who is irresponsible.

    You can have that honor.

  62. avatar
    Sef February 19, 2013 at 12:25 pm #

    Bob: Even the Supreme Court cannot order time to go backwards.

    Well, they could. Implementation, OTOH, might be a might tricky.

  63. avatar
    justlw February 19, 2013 at 12:26 pm #

    snafubar:
    justlw:

    “Today we are all parents.”

    I am not my brothers keeper.Sorry.

    You realize you’re quoting a fratricide, right?

  64. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 12:30 pm #

    donna:

    her latest: We are proceeding with the demand for the hearing in the Judiciary committee: 5 justices never received the applications, none received the supplemental brief, no signatures anywhere

    I am not a doctor but my father was, so I feel qualified to predict that one fo these days Orly is going to have a stroke. Her blood pressure must be 200/120.

  65. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 12:31 pm #

    Never mind again, the Bootstrap Paradox tells me that a future Doc came back in time to give you the news.

  66. avatar
    snafubar February 19, 2013 at 12:32 pm #

    justlw:

    “You realize you’re quoting a fratricide, right?”

    Right. But in modern vernacular it means that I am not responsible for other peoples bad decisions.

  67. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 12:39 pm #

    She’s still syaing that 5 of the justices never saw the brief she filed. And that there has to be a Judiciary Committee enquiry. She will look such a fool when they point out the provisions of the SCOTUS Rule for the number of copies required. When the single judge refers the matter to the entire Court, it is the court office that makes any further copies required. And as for the supplemental brief, she again didn’t read the rules. She was too late in filing it, and it was well in excess of what the Rules state is the maximum permitted length. So, basically, she is lying. Again.

  68. avatar
    Graham Shevlin February 19, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    It is at times like these that I wish that SCOTUS would append an explanation of Denial to the docket. Without any explanation, Orly and her band of followers and supporters can continue to make sh1t up, with no correction from SCOTUS.

  69. avatar
    misha marinsky February 19, 2013 at 12:54 pm #

    Rickey: I am not a doctor but my father was, so I feel qualified to predict that one fo these days Orly is going to have a stroke. Her blood pressure must be 200/120.

    Orly goes on a rampage:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/orange-county-shooting-spree_n_2717219.html

  70. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 12:56 pm #

    Better still if they disbarred her from SCOTUS. I see that they did that with a couple of attorneys in the latest list of orders. One was for abusing the processes of the Court, which is a nice way of describing her behavior. And where I come from, accusing a judge of treason would certainly have you disbarred. Where she comes from, probably much worse.

  71. avatar
    Thrifty February 19, 2013 at 1:07 pm #

    Why did you print the Universal Timecode at the bottom of your post? Do you realize how dangerous that is? What happens if a sociopathic robot sees this post?

  72. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 1:08 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    And as for the supplemental brief, she again didn’t read the rules. She was too late in filing it, and it was well in excess of what the Rules state is the maximum permitted length. So, basically, she is lying. Again.

    Yes, the limit on supplemental briefs is 15 pages. Orly’s is 63 pages. No doubt the SCOTUS clerks rejected it on the spot.

    Orly doesn’t believe that rules apply to her.

  73. avatar
    Thrifty February 19, 2013 at 1:10 pm #

    I’m just wondering what you people would do after the inevitable acquittal, should such a trial actually happen. I’m guessing “jury bribery” or “jury intimidation” would be the new mantras.

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

  74. avatar
    Yoda February 19, 2013 at 1:16 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    I would take that bet in a heartbeat.

  75. avatar
    Yoda February 19, 2013 at 1:17 pm #

    Thomas Brown:
    So, is Birtherism finally dead?

    Birtherism can’t die as is based on the fiction of an ever growing conspiracy. This is just more proof of the conspiracy.

  76. avatar
    Thrifty February 19, 2013 at 1:18 pm #

    Interesting that her accusation contains exactly 5 justices — the bare minimum number of justices that would have to avoid the case to prevent a majority.

    Even if, for whatever reason, only 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were present and ruled on a case. What would happen? Wouldn’t it still be majority rules (unless there were a tie)? Haven’t there been cases in which not all of the justices ruled, because one or more recused himself? I’m thinking the 8-0 decision in United States v. Nixon, when Rehnquist recused himself.

    I guess maybe she’s saying that 4 justices conspired to keep her case from the other 5, who would have indeed ruled in her favor and…. invalidated Obama’s California votes so that he won with 277 votes instead of 332?

    Andrew Morris:
    She’s still syaing that 5 of the justices never saw the brief she filed.

  77. avatar
    Yoda February 19, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    Rickey: Orly doesn’t believe that rules apply to her.

    That has always been Orly’s approach. She thinks that the rules should be ignored because this is the most important issue in the history of the universe.

  78. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    Rickey: I am not a doctor but my father was, so I feel qualified to predict that one fo these days Orly is going to have a stroke. Her blood pressure must be 200/120.

    CUIDADO – she will sue you for the unlawful practice of medicine

  79. avatar
    JPotter February 19, 2013 at 1:19 pm #

    Thrifty: I’m just wondering what you people would do after the inevitable acquittal,

    They would immediately start paying off their gambling debts….right? right?
    These are, after all, fine, upstanding Real ‘Mericans™.
    And, don’t forget, it’s all just “fiat money” anyway, so it wouldn’t really cost them a dime. :P

    The punters are lining up blow-hard! Hope you’re taking notes!

  80. avatar
    bgansel9 February 19, 2013 at 1:34 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Interesting that her accusation contains exactly 5 justices — the bare minimum number of justices that would have to avoid the case to prevent a majority.

    Anything to keep that donation button alive.

  81. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 1:40 pm #

    Thrifty:
    Interesting that her accusation contains exactly 5 justices — the bare minimum number of justices that would have to avoid the case to prevent a majority.

    Even if, for whatever reason, only 4 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were present and ruled on a case.What would happen?Wouldn’t it still be majority rules (unless there were a tie)?Haven’t there been cases in which not all of the justices ruled, because one or more recused himself?I’m thinking the 8-0 decision in United States v. Nixon, when Rehnquist recused himself.

    I guess maybe she’s saying that 4 justices conspired to keep her case from the other 5, who would have indeed ruled in her favor and…. invalidated Obama’s California votes so that he won with 277 votes instead of 332?

    It only takes one justice to grant a stay. In spite of her past fails with SCOTUS, Orly thought that she had accomplished something when Justice Roberts referred her petition to the entire court. But Roberts effectively denied her stay while at the same time referring it to the entire court. If he believed that the petition had any merit, he could have granted it on his own.

    So both Kennedy and Roberts had already denied her petition. At a minimum, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor would never have voted to grant her petition, so that is six against before we even had to think about what Scalia, Thomas and Alito might feel about it.

  82. avatar
    misha marinsky February 19, 2013 at 1:42 pm #

    Rickey: I am not a doctor

    I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

  83. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 1:43 pm #

    donna:

    CUIDADO – she will sue you for the unlawful practice of medicine

    Bring it on!

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2013 at 1:51 pm #

    Because a stay of something that already happened is moot.

    Frank Peters: How’d you predict that Orly would not win?

  85. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 1:55 pm #

    BLOW-HARD:
    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    I’ll take that bet!
    It’s a suckers bet, you being the sucker.

  86. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 1:59 pm #

    The problem that the Alito/Roberts/Thomas/Scalia faction has is that they’ve consistently narrowed the scope of who has standing, so that now pretty much no case has a chance unless the plaintiff can show a direct and credible interest. Even if they sympathized here, they’d never, ever risk a predecent that widened “standing”, or placed a future GOP President at risk.

  87. avatar
    JPotter February 19, 2013 at 2:11 pm #

    Rickey: In spite of her past fails with SCOTUS, Orly thought that she had accomplished something when Justice Roberts referred her petition to the entire court.

    You’re not expecting a arch-birfer to learn are ya?

    Nice breakdown. But there’s nothing to expect from the conservative trio.
    The only reason any SCOTUS justice would ever want to hear a birfer case would be to air out some constitutional point. And while SCOTUS has entertained some colorful characters, it’s hard to imagine Orly there, even if she had a point. The court generally has a great sense of humor, …. but I think she would quickly be incinerated. Tolerating that level of disrespect ain’t happ’ning.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm #

    The Supreme Court order explicitly says CERTIORARI DENIED above Sibley.

    Reality Check: Someone at Fogbow pointed out that this was Sibley’s motion to expedite that was denied. The denial of the writ for cert is a few weeks away.

  89. avatar
    Andrew Morris February 19, 2013 at 2:23 pm #

    So funny that she’s trying to take her case to the international courts that the far-right detest as an affront to American sovereignty.

  90. avatar
    Birther Weary February 19, 2013 at 2:44 pm #

    Andrew Morris:
    She’s still syaing that 5 of the justices never saw the brief she filed. And that there has to be a Judiciary Committee enquiry.She will look such a fool when they point out the provisions of the SCOTUS Rule for the number of copies required. When the single judge refers the matter to the entire Court, it is the court office that makes any further copies required. And as for the supplemental brief, she again didn’t read the rules. She was too late in filing it, and it was well in excess of what the Rules state is the maximum permitted length. So, basically, she is lying. Again.

    What Orly doesn’t know about the law probably makes up the entire curriculum of the Taft Law School on the Innertubes.

  91. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm #

    Rickey: In spite of her past fails with SCOTUS, Orly thought that she had accomplished something when Justice Roberts referred her petition to the entire court.

    roberts was smart or she would have applied 7 more time if roberts alone had denied her application

    as doc posted: If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may renew the application to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application. In practice, renewed applications usually are referred to the full Court to avoid such a prolonged procedure.

    A Reports Guide to Applications pending before the Supreme Court

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/01/orly-taitz-and-the-supremes/

    birthers concluded that “hear” means “hearing” when a stay application is on “papers”

  92. avatar
    Rickey February 19, 2013 at 3:08 pm #

    misha marinsky: I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

    I actually had a speaking line in a TV commercial once, but I wasn’t playing a doctor.

  93. avatar
    Plantmaster February 19, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    BLOW-HARD

    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor in the White House using current facts to find the impostor guilty of many criminal acts.

    You would have to get the House to indict, which is highly unlikely. Even if they were to indict, the jury would consist of the entire United States Senate—presided over by the Republican Chief Justice who swore in Obama for both terms. You are guaranteed to lose your bet.

    Pay up, buckaroo. Or, better yet, why don’t you pay Orly’s legal penalties and dental malpractice suits?

  94. avatar
    Plantmaster February 19, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

    BLOW-HARD

    Let the BLOWHARD RC take a 50,000 dollar bet on the outcome of a TRIAL by jury on the FRAUDULENT impostor

    Is a fraudulent imposter different from a legitimate imposter? You need to stamp out and eliminate your redundancies…;-)

  95. avatar
    misha marinsky February 19, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    Andrew Morris: So funny that she’s trying to take her case to the international courts that the far-right detest as an affront to American sovereignty.

    Glenn Beck did the same thing – all those RWNJ are hypocrites.

  96. avatar
    Reality Check February 19, 2013 at 4:47 pm #

    I was reading an old post at Fogbow. You are correct. It was denied today.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The Supreme Court order explicitly says CERTIORARI DENIED above Sibley.

  97. avatar
    chancery February 19, 2013 at 6:27 pm #

    Sef: Well, they could. Implementation, OTOH, might be a might tricky.

    Like “call[ing] spirits from the vasty deep.”

  98. avatar
    donna February 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    Rickey:

    aside from her being an idiot, i swear she doesn’t perfect service and makes other ridiculous mistakes so that her cases can’t be decided on the merits – she can continue to make excuses for her failures and blame others

    what a birther -blow-out – a triple play today

    thanks for the link

  99. avatar
    Horus February 19, 2013 at 11:14 pm #

    donna:
    Rickey:

    aside from her being an idiot, i swear she doesn’t perfect service and makes other ridiculous mistakes so that her cases can’t be decided on the merits – she can continue to make excuses for her failures and blame others

    what a birther -blow-out – a triple play today

    thanks for the link

    She probably doesn’t want any case decided on it’s merits, because then the gravy train of donations from her loyal rubes would disappear.

  100. avatar
    JPotter February 19, 2013 at 11:34 pm #

    Horus: She probably doesn’t want any case decided on it’s merits, because then the gravy train of donations from her loyal rubes would disappear.

    You underestimate the simple power of the denial at play here.

    How does the passing of the birfer fantasy of a “trial on the merits”—whatever birfers understand that to mean (I think to tham that means a trial that looks like the ones on TV)—change the situation one iota? The judge was one of them, the trial was rigged, the moon was in the wrong house, America has sinned too much. Whatever they have to tell themselves. What seems to work best is simply resetting every day at sunrise.

    To persist, ODS requires one condition, one condition only: Obama possessing the office of the Presidency.

    How many times have you seen a birfer disappear for a few days (hours!) after some dejection, only to pop back up dragging out some long-tarnished shiny, like nothing happened?

    I’m telling you, it’s 2008, and all the calendar pages are glued together!

    Orly faces increasing irrelevance (if that’s possible!), but she will always have some audience, until at least Jan 2017, unless events allow the 2016 election cycle to overwhelm the dregs of ODS.

    But you know, so long as O shows up in the media anywhere, the echoes will always be with us.

  101. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 20, 2013 at 12:27 am #

    The Farrar case was decided on the merits, and Taitz lost.

    Horus: She probably doesn’t want any case decided on it’s merits, because then the gravy train of donations from her loyal rubes would disappear.

  102. avatar
    The Magic M February 20, 2013 at 5:07 am #

    Thrifty: I guess maybe she’s saying that 4 justices conspired to keep her case from the other 5, who would have indeed ruled in her favor and…. invalidated Obama’s California votes so that he won with 277 votes instead of 332?

    Remember that for birthers it’s all about getting that one “success”. They believe that such an event, while obviously not enough to deny Obama the presidency on the spot, would be the trigger to “unravel the whole thing”.

    And indeed, if, arguendo, SCOTUS somehow agreed with Orly on the CA votes, don’t you think they would agree with her in her next 49 cases about the other states as well?
    That’s the belief that keeps birthers going – the look for the spark that will turn into a wildfire.

  103. avatar
    Daniel February 20, 2013 at 3:54 pm #

    The Magic M: the spark that will turn into a wildfire.

    In birtherstan, where there’s smoke there’s….

    … usually a birther kicking up dust, and demanding that the fire department respond to it.

  104. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    The Magic M: Remember that for birthers it’s all about getting that one “success”. They believe that such an event, while obviously not enough to deny Obama the presidency on the spot, would be the trigger to “unravel the whole thing”.

    While not denying him the presidency immediately, they do expect him to be shamefully frogmarched out of the White House within hours or at most, a few days. I consider that fairly immediate.

  105. avatar
    bgansel9 February 20, 2013 at 7:18 pm #

    JPotter: What seems to work best is simply resetting every day at sunrise

    Do they wake up listening to Sonny and Cher’s “I Got You, Babe!” on the radio too? (it’s Groundhog Day all over again!)

  106. avatar
    Capitolalb February 21, 2013 at 3:14 am #

    Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, election is over and Obama is sworn-in as President. Only impeachment would remove him from office. The GOP House would vote for Impeachment, however to be removed from office, the Senate requires 2/3 vote. Don’t bet the ranch on that happening.

  107. avatar
    The Magic M February 21, 2013 at 5:57 am #

    Daniel: In birtherstan, where there’s smoke there’s….

    Their own “smoke/fire” comments always remind me of the story of the lawyer who insured his cigars against fire, then smoked them and went to collect the money. ;)

  108. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 21, 2013 at 9:09 am #

    Sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s a Smoke Machine™.

    Hint: The smoke emanates from Cable TV and AM Radio.

  109. avatar
    Majority Will February 21, 2013 at 9:13 am #

    Thomas Brown:
    Sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s a Smoke Machine™.

    Hint:The smoke emanates from Cable TV and AM Radio.

    Fear based fanaticism is powered by an enormous block of dry ice.

  110. avatar
    Thomas Brown February 21, 2013 at 12:43 pm #

    Majority Will: Fear based fanaticism is powered by an enormous block of dry ice.

    The ‘rest of the story’ on these dangerous right-wing crap-slinging scumbags, though, is that once they’ve convinced people there’s a fire by the subterfuge of a smoke machine or dry ice, those whom they’ve convinced can trample each other to death fleeing the fictitious conflagration. Worse, they also trample sane people no matter how loudly they shout “But there’s no fire!!”

333333 44444
5555555
6666666