TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!

TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!!!

No. 10-446  
Title:
Charles Kerchner, Jr., et al., Petitioners
v.
Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.
Docketed: October 4, 2010
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (09-4209)
Decision Date: July 2, 2010
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 30 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 3, 2010)
Nov 3 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 3 2010 Brief amicus curiae of Western Center for Journalism filed. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 23, 2010.

54 Responses to “TODAY IS A BIG DAY AT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!”

  1. itooktheredpill Says:

    No. 10-678
    Title: Gregory S. Hollister, Petitioner
    v.
    Barry Soetoro, et al.

    Docketed: November 23, 2010
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    Case Nos.: (09-5080)
    Decision Date: March 22, 2010
    Rehearing Denied: August 23, 2010

    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Nov 22 2010 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 23, 2010)
    Nov 22 2010 Appendix of Gregory S. Hollister filed. (Volumes I, II, III)
    Dec 22 2010 Waiver of right of respondents Barry Soetoro, et al. to respond filed.
    Dec 29 2010 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 14, 2011.
    Dec 30 2010 Request for recusal received from petitioner.
    Jan 18 2011 Petition DENIED.

    —————–

    Lawyers say Supremes broke rule, failed to respond to recusal motion

  2. itooktheredpill Says:

    Who is Barry Soetoro?

    The U.S. Supreme Court has an opportunity to grant certiorari on THAT QUESTION tomorrow, March 4, 2011.

    Will they?

    I don’t know. But I think it is worth following the example of our Founders of fasting and praying for the next 24 hours.

    In CONGRESS,
    SATURDAY, March 16, 1776.

    IN times of impending calamity and distress; when the Liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive Administration, it becomes the indispensible duty of these hitherto free and happy Colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of Freedom, Virtue and Posterity.

    The Congress therefore…

  3. itooktheredpill Says:

    On March 7th, 2011 at 11:48 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    SCOTUS in full ostrich mode…

    The usurpation continues unchecked, as the Supreme Court is in full “see no evil” and/or “ostrich with its head in the sand” and/or “unindicted co-conspirators” mode…

    It is clear from today’s order list that Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves!

    Compare what is said about other cases, like this:

    10-762 LA WHOLESALE DRUG CO., ET AL. V. BAYER AG, ET AL.
    The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    To the Soetoro case:

    10-678 HOLLISTER, GREGORY S. V. SOETORO, BARRY, ET AL.

    The petitions for rehearing are denied.

    And another case:

    10-6618 BANEY, JOHN-PIERRE V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
    The petition for rehearing is denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

    It is clear that Sotomayor and Kagan did not recuse themselves in the Sotoro case, even though they have a very clear conflict of interest, and a petition asking for them to recuse themselves was NOT responded to by the court in the prescribed time, so by the Court’s own rules, that request should have been granted and Sotomayor and Kagan should have recused themselves.

    It really is a travesty that they did not, and that the court has turned a blind eye to the Soetoro usurpation.

  4. itooktheredpill Says:

    We should ask about conflicts of interest…, especially when it comes to those who have lifetime appointments and little oversight.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 47 other followers