Lunes, 29 de noviembre de 2010


?

The Supreme Court failed to uphold the Constitution


?

There are many things I could say about the ruling not to grant a writ of certiorari to Kerchner et al v. Obama et al, but leave that aside for the Supreme Court of the United States has that right.


?

It would be interesting to know why this writ was denied, but if on looks closely at page 15 of the order, one sees these consecutive cases,


?

10-416 MONTEJO, JESSE J. V. LOUISIANA

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions.


?

10-446 KERCHNER, CHARLES, ET AL. V. OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF U.S., ET AL.

The motion of Western Center for Journalism for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.


?

10-560 SCHULZ, ROBERT L. V. FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.


?

The only question I have and I am sure over 50% of Americans have is why did we not see on the Kerchner order the following Justices Kagan and Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.Seriously, they did not recuse themselves. They were appointed by the usurper Obama!


?

Was not both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor appointed by the usurper? Do they not have a financial stake in this? Was not inJustice Kagan the Solicitor General whose name is on previous Justice Department documents concerning Obama's ineligibility?


?

?

Justice (Mata) Sotomayor

Justice (Hari) Kagan


?

Obama's MataHari

Left looking ?legal barflies? aren't they?


?

It is not what the order says, it is what it doesn't say will haunt the Roberts court throughout history. What was the vote count, and what would have happened if Kagan and Sotomayor recused themselves? Why are they not taking part in some deliberations, but in the one where they have a financial stake in, they interject their opinion? We all knew for a long time no one was watching the store when it came to Article II, Section 1; but who is watching the store when it comes to the Justice's ethics, professionalism, and sense of fair and unbiased justice?


?

Chief Justice Robert's can you explain why this conflict of interest was allowed to fester on your Court?


?

We could have survived a constitutional crisis and came out the better for it, but if any thing comes to light concerning this that proves Obama is a usurper it will forever destroy what little faith people have in the government.


?

But one thing is for certain, Obama was NOT proven to be a natural-born citizen as required by the Constitution of the United States of America. He is still in office because of a legal concept called standing.


?

No wonder he is the laughing stock of the world's leaders,


?

AND that is what is going to haunt Obama forever. To insure that these lawsuits stop, Obama is not even going to be a one term pResident, he will be forced out of office under the 25th amendment before the first recess of the new Congress. Once he tries ?ruling? by fiat executive order, the new Congress will hold hearings. Not because it is the right thing to do, but because their political and possibly personal future would be at stake.


?

I guess Obama borrowed too much money and spent it on the SEIU and ACORN to tell China, ?so sorry we are not going to honor the debt the usurper put us in.?


?

Or just maybe it is the simple fact that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor could not find honest employment outside of that which is tax payer subsidized?


Publicado por Corazon7 @ 16:01
Comentarios (0)  | Enviar
Comentarios