Here’s a comment that appeared on The Free Republic forum:
Undoubtedly, the walls are closing in on Obama. Reed Hayes will serve as an unimpeachable witness before Roy Moore’s Alabama Supreme Court and from there the United States Supreme Court will have no options but to declare Obama ineligible.
With Roy Moore on our side and the fact that both of Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court and the others appointed by Clinton will have to recuse themselves from the case, the outcome is certain.
I was wondering exactly what case is before the US Supreme Court, is going to be. The Alabama Supreme Court is going to decide a narrow question of whether the Alabama Secretary of State does nor does not have an obligation to verify eligibility of candidates for office. The Republican secretary of state says “no.” The original trial court and the court of appeals have said “no.” And they are certainly not going to hear any testimony from anybody.
How is this going to make any difference to Obama. Even if the case went to the U. S. Supreme Court (and I find it hard to believe that a case solely involving Alabama law would be taken up by the U. S. Supreme Court, even if someone appealed it there, and the only way it would get appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, it seems to me, would be if the birthers LOST at the Alabama Supreme Court headed by Roy Moore.
There’s no rule at the U. S. Supreme Court requiring any justice to recuse themselves; it’s solely a personal decision. Given that there are not any justices on the Supreme Court showing signs of dementia, recusals won’t help. In fact, there has been no report that any U. S. Supreme Court justice has the slightest interest in hearing a birther case, and certainly none of the cases have been selected to be heard.
Birthers are such irrational optimists.
I left this comment for the Freepers; we’ll if it actually appears.
Some confusion there. First, the Alabama Supreme Court is not going to hear any witnesses. Appellate courts don’t do that; they decide questions of law.
The question of law before the Alabama Supreme Court is whether or not the Alabaman Secretary of State Chapman has a duty to investigate the eligibility of candidates for office in Alabama. Chapman says she doesn’t, and the original trial court and a court of appeal agreed. The question of Obama’s eligibility is not before the Alabama Supreme Court, despite attempts to argue that in plaintiffs’ briefs and the amicus brief from the Alabama Democratic Party.
The only way this goes to the US Supreme Court is if McInnish LOSES (your hopes in Roy Moore notwithstanding) and the Alabama Supreme Court affirms that Chapman had no duty to investigate candidates. McInnish could appeal but if he can’t win in Alabama with Roy Moore on the bench, how could you expect him to win before the US Supreme Court?
It is hard to see how the US Supreme Court would hear a case from Alabama that is solely a matter of Alabama law. And even if it were an eligibility case, the Supreme Court has declined on multiple cases to hear them.
As for recusal, and I presume you meant Obama’s appointees and not Clinton’s, there’s no rule that says that any Supreme Court justice has to recuse themselves for any reason. It’s their personal choice. [See update below]
I would suggest that you not be overly optimistic about this lawsuit, which I predict will fare no better than the 200-odd others lost plowing the same ground.
Update:
There actually is a statute about the recusal of federal judges, 28 U.S.C. 455. The problem with applying that statute to the Supreme Court in this case is that there is no higher court to enforce it, basically leaving the decision to the individual justice as I said. Generally, however, justices are not beholden to the president that appointed them, and so this is not a cause for recusal. The Supreme Court decides cases all the time where the administration or the President is a party, and justices do not recuse themselves in those cases.
As usual, Doc, you are too polite.
Optimism is a healthy response to circumstances…..even slightly irrational ones. After all we do buy a lot of lottery tickets.
The truth is birthers are delusional and willing to believe anything that feeds their bitter, racist feelings about America and its first black President.
And why would there be any reason for Breyer and Ginsburg to recuse themselves? Even if there were a rule about Supreme Court recusal, under what twisted logic would Clinton’s appointees be affected?
I would say that “birthers are such ignorant and irrational optimists.”
I think he’s referring to Obama’s two appointees.
Not if you quoted him correctly.
“…both of Obama’s appointments to the Supreme Court and the others appointed by Clinton will have to recuse themselves from the case.” [emplhasis mine]
I saw your point the second time around, and yes, I quoted him correctly.
As usual, birthers jump too short even in the framework of their own internal “logic”:
1. Since not just Democrats but also Republicans are necessarily “in on it” (even the Republican members of Congress have told birthers to get lost), those SC judges who were appointed by Republican Presidents would also have to recuse themselves, leaving an empty SCOTUS which can not decide in the birthers’ favour.
2. Even if that were not the case, not a single SCOTUS judge has ever so much as hinted that he would side with birtherism, making even a 1-4 loss among the conservative SCOTUS judges improbable, let alone a 3-2 or even 5-0 win.
3. And finally, for the umpteenth time, even if SCOTUS declared the WH PDF is a forgery and even if the vault LFBC were a forgery, it wouldn’t prove ineligibility. I think even SCOTUS would need something more than “your proof of citizenship is no more” to remove a sitting president who has been in office for 5 years. I don’t think the burden of proof would suddenly shift.
could it be simply a vehicle to to launch/introduce the reed hayes report to the world ?
Hi Doc – Great, thoughtful work, as usual. Actually there is a “rule” on recusal that applies to the Supreme Court, — 28 U.S.C. 455. However, the application of the rule is, in practice, completely discretionary with respect to Supreme Court Justices as there is no higher court to overrule a Justice’s decision not to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. 455(a). There are also specific “conflict” scenarios in which federal judges and justices should also “disqualify themselves” set out in 455(b). Any motion to recuse goes to the individual Justice in question for determination.
His next comment clarified his position:
To: arthurus
Not when the Alabama Supreme Court in decision against Obama cites irrefutable facts that prove that Obama is not qualified.
And remember, the only Justices that would be involved in case would be Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
50 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 4:32:37 PM by Wellington VII
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3045387/posts?page=50#50
No.
You mean like the many other claims they’ve made over the last 2 years but then never actually made public? Oh the life of a birther to always wish upon a star.
LOL. Do you think they actually want anyone to see the Hayes report? They know damn well that if they actually repease it it will be demolished in short order.
Its just like WND tried to keep the reports of the experts they hired confidential as it didn’t say what they claimed they said, and it was only when people saw the actual reports that they shut up about them. A mythical report that no-one has seen can give hope to their paying idiots. They can project as much hope into it as they like. An unseen report is totally infallible.
They must have recognized the pattern that all their proofs fall apart the moment they are seen. So they are trying a new tactic. They can live in hope till the “Trial” then they can invent a reason why the Obama administration is fighting to keep the Hayes report hidden
I see that no Freepers have bothered to contribute further to the thread following Doc’s intervention…
This analysis by the Freepers makes no sense, even by the questionable standards of the birthers…why would members of the High Nine recuse themselves in this case? And why would the conservative judges turn birther?
I think it’s just to buck up spirits among birthers, and squeeze more money out of them.
Why would they want to do that?
Actually no Scott. It is simply that the report doesn’t say what they say it says and they can’t release it because they want to write another book extensively quoting a report that nobody but them has seen. That way,. the birthers buy the book, believe their lies, and they hope continue to send money. Basic scam.
Yes, good point Jim. And, also, some debunkers will buy the book in order to tear it apart. Money in the bank
Justice Kagan has either set or is very close to setting the record for recussals because she was Solicitor General before her confirmation to the Supreme Court. She is VERY prone to recuse.
The thing that I’ve never fully understood is why Mike Zullo keeps up this charade. Maybe I’m being too generous, but I happen to believe that Zullo realizes he doesn’t have anything approaching actual proof.
Yet he keeps stringing this along.. Is he profiting from it in some way? Is he afraid of the backlash when birthers finally figure out he’s been stringing them along with false hope? Or is he a true believer that hopes something, anything substantial will fall out of the sky?
Stay tuned.
“scott e:
could it be simply a vehicle to to launch/introduce the reed hayes report to the world ?”
.
What, a report on an informational replica of a BC. That PDF is not a legal document, it was merely an informational copy. To think Hayes report has any value is silly!. Zullu made no attempts to contact any of the reporters that saw the original nor did Zullu contact Savannah G. who touched the seal and took a snapshot. Zullu made no attempts to view the original which was available at the White House. and scott e thinks there was an investigation, what a joke.
It is a mystery to me as well. My best guess is that Zullo is a true believer, and as a member of that clan they know what the truth is, whether their evidence has proven it yet or not.
the only reason that makes sense for him to be continuing with the charade is that this is his only source of income.
This appears to me to be a long roll out for an e-book. Zullo has hundreds of pages evidence much of which can not be revealed. And there is the Reed Hayes report which cannot be made public just yet. And all those unnamed VIP’s and high level congress persons. My guess is that if you want to know the secret evidence or read Hayes’ report or find out which VIPs or members of Congress are traitors, you’ll just have to buy the book.
Gallups made an interesting comment while interviewing Zullo about a week ago. Carl was asking people to remain patient because it may take some time for congress to act, after all “we’re running into the end of the year and the holidays and Congressional recesses”. So it appears to me that they intend to draw this out at least until next year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agqyxizoKtY
@ 4:00.
From the birther comments I’ve been reading, it seems many of those relying on Zullo to deliver the goods are getting impatient.
Can’t say that I blame them for that.. The CCP was established roughly two years ago.
I’m thinking that Zullo has already moved on to the Clinton smear.
I hear he has a report from an ‘expert’ in body language that she doesn’t have a penis. But I suppose another expert will provide proof of the opposite sometime shortly after the 2014 mid-terms.
Recently Zullo said that he and Congressman Stockman were having some difficulty coordinating their schedules and he didn’t know when or where the next meeting would occur.
The greatest fraud, crime in the history of the world and they can’t work out a play date.
So….what is it now…..”Any month now.”……or Any year……”, “Any decade……”. Where does it end?
Stockman’s only been in office six and a half months and he’s a very busy guy with just tons of responsibilities and…..and…….maybe they haven’t hooked up his phone yet so Zullo can’t call him. Sheesh…..let’s give ’em a break.
It ends when the birthers stop giving them money and switch to getting ripped off by Goldline.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/secrets_of_the_right_selling_garbage_to_your_fans/
Then it will never end. Fools are born every minute and have been since the beginning of time.
I read that as:
Stockman won’t return my phone calls, but as soon as he does I will request our first- I mean next meeting.
Either that or someone emailed his chief of staff and showed him some of gallups other crazy shows like Obama is the antichrist and he wouldn’t let stockman touch it with a ten foot pole.
Any possibility someone e-mailed them the real evidence about the LFBC or the Selective Service registration?
The other thing to consider when looking at Zullo’s motivations is that once the Birth certificate issue falls into dust, he no longer is important. He no longer will be able to go on radio shows and read people talking about him.
Much like ScottE and others feel that they are important because they are ‘personally fighting a huge government conspiracy’ by posting insane rants on websites, Zullo, without the birth certificate, is nobody.
@Scott E
What is stopping Zullo and company from launching or releasing the report now?
Isn’t it more likely he’s just a grifter who’s found something to milk?
My hunch is that the report doesn’t say what Zullo claims it says. Either that or Reed Hayes threw in a major disclaimer which Zullo doesn’t want anyone to see.
And this is how Christianity invented “Judgment Day”. 😉
I disagree. If he were, he’d be trumpeting his “new evidence” to the world. True believers would not care about others tearing their stuff apart.
Apart from the “ego boost” theory, I think he is – similar to people like Mark Gillar – a hateful wannabe swiftboater who would claim the moon is made of cheese if it helped end the presidency of the black guy. Birtherism is just a vehicle for him, just like it was for Arpaio or Trump. The big difference is that Zullo, unlike Arpaio/Trump, has nothing else.