Monday, December 29, 2008

Seeing the Big Picture - SCOTUS vs Obama

Reposted from: Talk Wisdom Blog


Didn't really want to discuss the Obama citizenship issue on Christmas Eve, but there have been some developments that might give those of us who are questioning Obama's "natural born citizen" status some hope.


Over at Obama Crimes.com, I was reading through the last few pages of comments (there are over 7,000!!) and wanted to share the following ones so that readers will be up to date on what is happening over at the Supreme Court re: the Berg vs. Obama case. If the commenter is correct in what he has written, we might just see justice in this case, after all!


Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1

written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008

In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.

The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the FUCK?

Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.

However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!

Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the Writ of Certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!

Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!

2 comments:
Post a Comment