Saturday, January 12, 2013

The Birther's Birther Gets Her Day

Whenever I see a news article mentioning the name "Orly Taitz" in the first paragraph, I usually roll my eyes and grab a link to elsewhere.  Please don't ask me which side I'm on in the "Birther" conflict - I'm not on any side. Long ago I decided that even if true, it was a "lost cause" issue and that once again (if true) the Constitution was in for a trampling.  I feel there are countless higher-priority aggrievances that need to be dealt with, including Constitutional ones, and this is super-especially the case if the Birthers' charges are false.

I see it as an "I'm not that worried about you stomping on my toes - it's the stabbings I want you to stop" kind of thing.

So "Obama maybe not being born in this country", or "Obama possibly not being a 'natural born' citizen due to his father's Kenyan citizenship", or "Obama's questionable legal status due to his adoption in Indonesia" etc., are quandaries I feel truly shouldn't occupy my attention unless A) I suddenly discover that I'm immortal, and B) they're addressed in hindsight after he's been thrown into the outer darkness, or at least permanent exile, for his greater offenses.

That being the case, I must admit a bit of surprise when on a whim I followed a link to a site I'd never visited before, and read the following:

Breaking news! Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts schedules a case by Attorney Taitz regarding Obama’s forged IDs to be heard in conference before the full Supreme Court

Now as much as I despise our President and what he stands for, I don't automatically take seemingly good news at face value without confirmation or corroboration, so I jumped over to the Supreme Court's site and searched their docket.  Well what do you know?

No. 12A606   
Title:     Edward Noonan, et al., Applicants
Deborah Bowen, California Secretary of State

Docketed:    December 13, 2012
Lower Ct:    Supreme Court of California
Case Nos.:    (S207078)
~~~Date~~~     ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 11 2012     Application (12A606) for a stay, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 13 2012     Application (12A606) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 26 2012     Application (12A606) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jan 9 2013        DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 15, 2013.
Jan 9 2013        Application (12A606) referred to the Court.

I guess the only thing left to do is take bets, and I honestly don't yet know which way I'll be waging. I welcome any gambling advice on this one - I lost my shirt on John Roberts' Obamacare decision...


  1. Nothing is scheduled to be "heard"n nobody will be appearing and it's not a 'case' as such. It's an application for a stay. The application being placed on the conference list was routine and automatic as soon as she resubmitted it to a second justice (Roberts) after the first justice she presented it to (Kennedy) rejected it.

    That is how Scotus prevent Plaintiffs resubmitting the same thing again and again to every one of the justices in turn and each of then wasting taxpayers money dealing with rejecting it. Roberts submitting it to conference in those circumstances doesn't even mean that Roberts even read the application, let alone saw any merit in it.

    Being on the conference list doesn't mean it will be on the actual 'discuss' list. Since both things that she's asking to stay are already moot this stay application is inevitably dead in the water and will not even be discussed by Scotus on 15 Feb. It will just be stamped 'denied' along with at least 95% of everything else submitted to conference.

    Unless you can get odds of 1 million to one or better don't bet on it being anything other than denied without discussion. Hope this helps.

  2. It does help, thanks! Or at least it certainly effects how I may end up wagering...

    Much obliged!