Another One Bites The Dust - Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz

[PatGund]

According to Supreme Court orders for 15 December, Wrotnowski v Bysiewicz is denied.

'08A469
WROTNOWSKI, CORT V. BYSIEWICZ, CT SEC. OF STATE
The application for stay and/or injunction addressed to Justice Scalia and referred to the Court is denied."

This leaves in the Supreme Court two cases (Berg v. Obama and Lightfoot v. Bowen), and two maybe cases, (no docket number on either). And none of the cases now in the Supreme Court will be heard until after the Electoral College votes today.

11 cases have now been rejected by the courts, two at the Supreme Court level. This is not a good track record..... At what point do the wingnuts realize this turkey won't fly?

[Renew Deal]

1. Why hasn't the Berg case been rejected yet?

I thought it was 2 weeks ago.

[PatGund]

2. Good Question......

All three of Berg's attempts at "Emergency Stays", (one to stop the election, one to stop the electoral college, and one to stop the house, senate, and VP from confirming the results) have been denied, but the main case has not gone to conference yet

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Oh, and Lightfoot v. Bowen, ran by the same lawyer/dentist that's helping with Keyes case, just got to the Supreme Court

http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08a524.htm

On edit - on 4 December, the story was that Berg v. Obama would go to conference within 10 days. If that's true, it may go to this friday's conference (where they must be getting sick of these cases)

[Alter Ego]

3. They won't ever realize it.

They think now that the Supreme Court is in on the scam too--a huge, elaborate plan to make President Obama the supreme God-Emperor of All Creation and to turn it into a Soviet-like state where we all have to eat cabbage and call each other "Comrade".

There will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER be any convincing these people.

[jberryhill]

5. Not only will there be no convincing them....

But there is also a lot of intentional deception going on at freerepugnance and other sites.

Some of the folks hanging out there seem to be "fact injectors" who inject deliberate misinformation into the discussions there, which then become "facts".

If anyone so much as asks "where did you get that from", they are banned.

[WeDidIt]

6. Yep, try and post the Obama Birth Certificate there

You cannot argue with these people because they immeidately claim it's a proven fake, even though it has never been proven a fake. Some asshole who goes by the moniker of Polarik dubbed it a fake and thus it must be a fake because they read it on the internet.

[PatGund]

7. Ah Yes......

The supposed "Dr. Ron Polarik, Ph.D." I think the Ph.D. is in bullshitology He's a nameless, faceless supposed "expert" with no proven background, and who has had his "research" cut apart by real computer forensic experts. But the Cult of the COLB and the freepers think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[jberryhill]

8. Two of my favorite "facts"

"Factcheck is an Obama-controlled organization" They don't seem to understand that Ronald Reagan's pal, Walter Annenberg, funded a lot of things, including a school of communication at UPenn which bears his name, and which runs Factcheck.org. They also seem to have forgotten that none other than Dick Cheney himself referred to the site as a reliable source in the 2004 vice presidential debate. They think it was created during this election cycle as some sort of front for Obama.

"It was illegal to go to Pakistan in 1981" This fact is of ancillary importance to one of their theories that Obama had used an Indonesian passport during a 9181 visit to Pakistan with a friend from college. It is an entirely invented fact, with no basis in reality whatsoever. What's particularly amusing here is the NY Times Travel Section article from June 14, 1981, which explains what is required to visit Pakistan:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1338F937A25755C0A967948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=1

Questioning either of those facts turns a freeper into roadkill.

[PatGund]

11. Yep.....

Their mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.

They also take it as a article of faith that Stanley Ann Durham lost both HER US citizenship AND Barack Obama's US citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro and he was supposedly adopted by Mr. Soetoro. This seems to be based on a misreading of the Nationality Act of 1940 AND a belief that Indonesian law trumps US law for purposes of determining US citizenship. When in fact:

1) There's no evidence that Stanley Ann Durham ever gave up her US citizenship. Indeed, since she passed it on to Maya Soetoro, it's proof she kept it.

2) While the Nationality Act of 1940 does state a woman loses her US citizenship if she marries a non US citizen, that ONLY applies to marriages before 1922.

3) Section 401 & 407 of the Nationality Act of 1940 state, quite clearly, that no action of a parent will effect that minor's US citizenship. The child has to become 23 and not take any steps to live in the US or claim US citizenship before it can be lost.

[jberryhill]

13. Do you notice how they turn that around?

If you want to renounce your citizenship, you cannot do so until you are 18.

There's a bunch of them that read this as if you need to take some affirmative act to confirm your citizenship when you turn 18.

[AllentownJake]

12. Pakistan was a US ally from its inception

till now, India was the country that sided with the Soviets.

:rofl:

[WeDidIt]

16. I had a friend who was in teh Navy at the time Obama traveled

He told me all about how Karachi was the asshole of the world.

Karachi was a port of call for our Navy during the 80s.

[jberryhill]

14. The entire "fake" thing is a canard

A .jpg image of anything is not a "genuine document".

They keep saying "he should produce his birth certificate", but I can't figure out whether they mean each freeper should be individually mailed one.

Even that demand is pretty stupid, since Barack Obama is not the lawful authority responsible for issuing genuine Hawaiian birth certificates anyway.

[PatGund]

19. I know.....

Not only do they think this turkey can fly, they think it's jet propelled and able to fly faster than sound. And nothing will convince them otherwise.

[Adelante]

4. Patrick, you need a DU journal to collect these things

Great job following it all :hi:

[WeDidIt]

9. Pat, here's a new one to afdd to your collection

This is the excuse du jour for the SCOTUS denying these things:

Is the Judicial Review Allowed Only After the Electoral College Vote?

Is this why the Donofrio v. Wells (NJ) case is still pending? Is it only after the Electoral College votes and Congress certifies the election, that the Supreme Court believes it may take action regarding the eligibility of presidential candidates? The cases currently before the court, except for the Berg (PA) case, are versus state secretaries of state, not against Barack Obama, but perhaps that does not make a difference.

Is it similar to a prosecutor only allowed to prosecute after the crime and not before?

Batshit Insane Rightwing Blog

[PatGund]

10. Yep, I read that....

Seems to be the latest "great white hope"

The same author is also claiming that, in the case of the Washington State case Broe v. Reed, Since the SoS WA was granted a hearing with oral arguments on 8 Jan 09, Obama must show he is:

1. born on American soil,
2. the son of two American citizens.

Actually, the arguments will be to dismiss or continue with the case, and Obama won't have to prove a blessed thing unless it goes to trial. It's a Berg-style case with some Donofrio mixed in, and the fundie lawyer running it has ties to Gary Kreep's organization. Expect dismissal.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

15. Worst game of Scrabble ever.

[PatGund]

17. YEah, that case WAS a....

..."Do you want to buy a vowel" thing.

[WeDidIt]

18. Could you imagine if the SCOTUS had taken the case?

Worse yet, could you imagine being a law student ten years after the SCOTUS took the case?