Obama's supreme court hearing?

[gator996]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

You must have slept through the last 5 years if you have to ask that.

Show us the "effort" to conceal records about Obama's citizenship classification as a youth...

The birther's haven't only gone after Obama, they've questioned Romney's eligibility because of his family's long residence in Mexico, and also McCain's eligibility for being born in the Panama Canal zone...

Are there Romney & McCain efforts to conceal their records also?


So, specifically tell us where Obama's lawyers are blocking what are open access records?

[g8trjax]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

You must have slept through the last 5 years if you have to ask that.

O's got the most transparent administration EVER! Just ask anyone in the media, they will back me up on this.

[gator996]

What I've noticed is that the OP's assertion in some "effort" by Obama is supported by nothing...

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by gator996

Show us the "effort" to conceal records about Obama's citizenship classification as a youth...

The birther's haven't only gone after Obama, they've questioned Romney's eligibility because of his family's long residence in Mexico, and also McCain's eligibility for being born in the Panama Canal zone...

Are there Romney & McCain efforts to conceal their records also?


So, specifically tell us where Obama's lawyers are blocking what are open access records?

You answered your own question in an earlier , very long post, about lawsuits having to be filed for the public to see records that verify Obama's citizenship and eligibility to run for President. Are you saying Obama has fulfilled all requests for all his records to be released from his birth onward, or has he declined almost every one? For the record, I am not interested in playing semantic games with you if that is what you are trying to do.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

Is this the same old Birther stuff regurgitated or did this happen? I can't find anything about it outside of these references but it does fit in nicely with Obama's secret weekend away from the press. Now I am not a "Birther" but I do think there has been a lot of effort to hide documents from the public relating to anything to do with Obama's possible citizenship classification when he was younger.


http://shiftshaper.org/freeatlast/20...on-on-tuesday/

Okay...I'm going to address the "secret hearing" garbage. There are thousands of petitions for review, called "Petitions for Writ of Certiorari," and other motions and petitions considered by the US Supreme Court every year. The way that the Supreme Court considers them is that they are filed (and appear on the publicly available docket, which is quoted in the article), if a response is requested, one is filed and the Petitioner has an opportunity to reply. Let me be clear about this: Anyone can file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari from an adverse appellate decision by a state court of last resort or a federal appeals court, so long as they pay the filing fee or are exempted as an indigent. Similarly, anyone can do that same with other motions, such as a motion to stay, which is what this is.

When documents for review are filed, they are referred to chambers where they are reviewed (for 8 justices) by a clerk in the certiorari pool. That clerk prepares a memo explaining the case and reasons to take or not take the case, and offers a recommendation. Every Friday during the Court's session, the Justices have a private conference. No staff or clerks are present in that conference. During that conference, in addition to other things, the Justices decide which cases to take and which to deny. Generally, on Monday (or, as today when there is a holiday, Tuesday), the Court will issue an "Order List" that addresses all the Petitions that were considered in the Friday conference. (Sometimes, for scheduling reasons, grants are issued on Friday, rather than Monday.)

When a Petition or Application for other relief is filed, it is referred to the chambers of one justice, the justice who is assigned to that Circuit. The Justice can either deny it himself or herself or can refer to the matter to the full Court for disposition. If the matter is referred to the full Court and denied, end of ballgame. If the Justice denies it alone, the application can be refiled with another Justice. That Justice can deny (end of ballgame) or refer to the full Court, who, if denies (end of ballgame). When a single Justice has already denied the application, refiling and obtaining relief is VERY VERY VERY RARE.

That a case was distributed for last Friday's conference is not "secret" or "hidden." It is relatively typical. There are a litany of cases that were distribted for last Friday's conference, just like there are a litany that are distribed for next Friday's conference. If you don't believe me, go the US Supreme Court's website and, in the top right corner, click "Docket files" and type in "February 15, 2013" and search.

If there were something "secret," it would not be on the Supreme Court's docket for anyone to see, such as appeals from the FISA court. Amazingly, truly "secret" information is not available via Google.

Further, this motion to stay is going to almost certainly be denied on Tuesday (if not sooner). The application was filed with Kennedy and it was denied. Then they resubmitted the application and it was referred to the full Court. As I said, it is EXTREMELY RARE for the Court to grant a stay after a single justice has denied it.

[JerseyGator01]

It's always amused me at how long it took Hawaii to find Obama's birth certificate, even when the newly-elected governor became involved. I guess they had to find just the right ink color.

And the media doesn't want you to know that Hillary started the whole "birther" fad. And now her worshipers in the media want Queen Birther to be Prez.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

Okay...I'm going to address the "secret hearing" garbage. There are thousands of petitions for review, called "Petitions for Writ of Certiorari," and other motions and petitions considered by the US Supreme Court every year. The way that the Supreme Court considers them is that they are filed (and appear on the publicly available docket, which is quoted in the article), if a response is requested, one is filed and the Petitioner has an opportunity to reply. Let me be clear about this: Anyone can file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari from an adverse appellate decision by a state court of last resort or a federal appeals court, so long as they pay the filing fee or are exempted as an indigent. Similarly, anyone can do that same with other motions, such as a motion to stay, which is what this is.

When documents for review are filed, they are referred to chambers where they are reviewed (for 8 justices) by a clerk in the certiorari pool. That clerk prepares a memo explaining the case and reasons to take or not take the case, and offers a recommendation. Every Friday during the Court's session, the Justices have a private conference. No staff or clerks are present in that conference. During that conference, in addition to other things, the Justices decide which cases to take and which to deny. Generally, on Monday (or, as today when there is a holiday, Tuesday), the Court will issue an "Order List" that addresses all the Petitions that were considered in the Friday conference. (Sometimes, for scheduling reasons, grants are issued on Friday, rather than Monday.)

When a Petition or Application for other relief is filed, it is referred to the chambers of one justice, the justice who is assigned to that Circuit. The Justice can either deny it himself or herself or can refer to the matter to the full Court for disposition. If the matter is referred to the full Court and denied, end of ballgame. If the Justice denies it alone, the application can be refiled with another Justice. That Justice can deny (end of ballgame) or refer to the full Court, who, if denies (end of ballgame). When a single Justice has already denied the application, refiling and obtaining relief is VERY VERY VERY RARE.

That a case was distributed for last Friday's conference is not "secret" or "hidden." It is relatively typical. There are a litany of cases that were distribted for last Friday's conference, just like there are a litany that are distribed for next Friday's conference. If you don't believe me, go the US Supreme Court's website and, in the top right corner, click "Docket files" and type in "February 15, 2013" and search.

If there were something "secret," it would not be on the Supreme Court's docket for anyone to see, such as appeals from the FISA court. Amazingly, truly "secret" information is not available via Google.

Further, this motion to stay is going to almost certainly be denied on Tuesday (if not sooner). The application was filed with Kennedy and it was denied. Then they resubmitted the application and it was referred to the full Court. As I said, it is EXTREMELY RARE for the Court to grant a stay after a single justice has denied it.

Thanks for clearing that up. That is actually the kind of clarification I was looking for when I saw this. Makes a lot more sense now..

[gator996]

Who's playing semantic games?

Here are the many many sites that debunk this conservative myth.

My point is "Where is the proof of any effort to block anything?"


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookm...racy-theories/


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_O...ollege_records
"Everyone, including presidents, has a right to keep certain records (medical records, college transcripts, etc) confidential. This does not necessarily mean the person is hiding anything: there are many reasons why presidents do not release certain records, and it is a myth that every other president except Obama has released every record. In fact, a number of presidents did not want their college transcripts, or some other documents, released. There are privacy laws that say a person is not obligated to release them unless he or she wants to. And it has been correctly pointed out on several fact-checking sites that President Obama's records are not "sealed"-- a legal term which means a court did it; rather, the president himself, like others before him, has exercised his right to keep certain records private. It should also be noted that some pieces of information about his college grades are publicly available: for example, we know he graduated from Harvard Law School with academic honors, and the university has acknowledged that fact."

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by gator996

Who's playing semantic games?

Here are the many many sites that debunk this conservative myth.

My point is "Where is the proof of any effort to block anything?"


http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookm...racy-theories/

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_O...ollege_records
"Everyone, including presidents, has a right to keep certain records (medical records, college transcripts, etc) confidential. This does not necessarily mean the person is hiding anything: there are many reasons why presidents do not release certain records, and it is a myth that every other president except Obama has released every record. In fact, a number of presidents did not want their college transcripts, or some other documents, released. There are privacy laws that say a person is not obligated to release them unless he or she wants to. And it has been correctly pointed out on several fact-checking sites that President Obama's records are not "sealed"-- a legal term which means a court did it; rather, the president himself, like others before him, has exercised his right to keep certain records private. It should also be noted that some pieces of information about his college grades are publicly available: for example, we know he graduated from Harvard Law School with academic honors, and the university has acknowledged that fact."

So we agree, Obama has blocked access to his records by refusing to release them and exerted effort in fighting attempts to get their release. Thanks for the assist!

[gator996]

"Now I am not a "Birther" but I do think there has been a lot of effort to hide documents from the public relating to anything to do with Obama's possible citizenship classification when he was younger. "



There was something in my post that convinved you that Obama is making some "effort" to hide his citizenship status?


Obama has released the records that every other president has released....

In your mind that means he's hiding his citizenship classification....


Guess what?
You're wrong...you ARE a birther

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by gator996

"Now I am not a "Birther" but I do think there has been a lot of effort to hide documents from the public relating to anything to do with Obama's possible citizenship classification when he was younger. "



There was something in my post that convinved you that Obama is making some "effort" to hide his citizenship status?


Obama has released the records that every other president has released....

In your mind that means he's hiding his citizenship classification....


Guess what?
You're wrong...you ARE a birther

[VAg8r1]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

It's always amused me at how long it took Hawaii to find Obama's birth certificate, even when the newly-elected governor became involved. I guess they had to find just the right ink color.

And the media doesn't want you to know that Hillary started the whole "birther" fad. And now her worshipers in the media want Queen Birther to be Prez.

CORRUPTION RULES!!!!!

Took long?

Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 1 2008: "This has gotten ridiculous," state health director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said yesterday. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy." . . . Will this be enough to quiet the doubters? "I hope so," Fukino said. "We need to get some work done."

Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

By the way, Dr. Fukino is a Republican and she was appointed to her position by Republican governor Linda Lingle.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by VAg8r1

Took long?

By the way, Dr. Fukino is a Republican and she was appointed to her position by Republican governor Linda Lingle.

Absolutely amazing, isn't it? These guys say the same things on this board over and over and it just doesn't matter that none of it is true.

[oragator1]

Obama's secret weekend was to play golf with tiger and get lessons from butch Harmon.

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Absolutely amazing, isn't it? These guys say the same things on this board over and over and it just doesn't matter that none of it is true.

So your saying we could get a job with the Obama campaign when Stephanie Cutter leaves? Or maybe take over for Wasserman-Schulz as head of the Party? Does it pay very well or do I just get free phones and health care?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

So your saying we could get a job with the Obama campaign when Stephanie Cutter leaves? Or maybe take over for Wasserman-Schulz as head of the Party? Does it pay very well or do I just get free phones and health care?

no offense, but is that supposed to mean something?

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by oragator1

Obama's secret weekend was to play golf with tiger and get lessons from butch Harmon.

You are correct. They finally released a photo of what the Pres did with Tiger this weekend. No wonder Michelle or the press weren't invited...

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by rivergator

no offense, but is that supposed to mean something?

Only to those that don't get all their news from MSNBC


Google results..


Showing results for wasserman schultz lies

About 579,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Showing Stephanie Cutter lies

About 598,000 results (0.95 seconds)

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Guys, please. Google search result counts do not mean anything. At all.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by FlyingGatorII

Only to those that don't get all their news from MSNBC


Google results..


Showing results for wasserman schultz lies

About 579,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Showing Stephanie Cutter lies

About 598,000 results (0.95 seconds)

Ronald Reagan lies. 7,060,000. .39 seconds.
Jesus Christ lies. 26,500,000. .33 seconds.
whoop de doo.
And are those suppose to have something with your birtherism?

By the way, I assume you realize the so-called story you linked to in the initial post is completely bogus. As are your claims that Obama has tried to conceal all his personal records.