What will be the outcome on December 5?

Question

What will be the outcome on December 5?

Answer 1

Where do you get this cr@p from seriously? Even fox news even coving this load of garbage. Get over it. Go for therapy or something.

Answer 2

They will refuse to hear the case without comment

Answer 3

You guys keep changing the date what ever happen to Dec 1.

By the way it's not scheduled for there docket either day. Those silly blog writers. LOL

Answer 4

December 1st, then the 2nd, then the 5th, now January 9th...I detect a trend. And I never see any FedGov sites/sources, just oft-repeated gleanings from on-line crackpots. Wazzup wid dat?



NEWSFLASH for the "O ye of little faith" crowd:



It seems that it's a moot point, or a non-issue / non-starter only pursued by possibly *cough* well-intentioned but probably loser wacko nutjob lalalala off-the-wall screamer-flamers punkyflannelsneezyjeaner loony-toon bananas cuckoo bonkers neener-neener ga-ga wingnutters like Berg, Donofrio and Keyes.



Don't you think that the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security and even Intelligence Agencies Without Names would have 'outed' Obama before this IF there had a been even a hint of something fishy? Especially given the fact that a Republican president would LOVE to have a reason to negate the election? The alternative must be, then, that the ENTIRE Republican-run government is conspiring to aid in the commission of a fraud... how could ANYONE with 2 brain cells to rub together believe such a thing?



And if there had been, you KNOW that someone would have leaked it to those paragons of truth: The National Enquirer, Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh, all of whom would STILL be in the throes of journalistic orgasm? Hey: if even FOX won't touch it, what does that tell you? It's time for the flat-earth / Tinfoil Beanie Brigaders to give this one up.



Face it, it's a dumb rumor that 'sounds' good, replete with some erroneous legalese and a few dates thrown in, but in reality is wholly, completely, totally, incontestably, unutterably and indubitably without a speck, iota or scintilla of merit. Kinda like the "he's a Muslim / anti-Christ / Marxist / socialist / fascist / communist / radical / Manchurian Candidate" etc etc etc., rants. Too bad that so many people believe it, but it seems like a time-waster, a waste of THEIR time and effort, but not mine.

.



The following is a McCain supporter / McCain campaign exchange:

.

"I heard... he's...he's not a ... he's not like US... he's a A-RAB!!!!!!"

"No, ma'am, he's not, he's a citizen and a fine American."

"He... he IS??????????"

.

Sorry, but if that's typical of Plain/McCain supporters....... then it's typical of the desperate folks who cobbled this p.o.s. together, but it's not fit for human intellectual consumption. It's 100% bullcrap.

PERIOD.

Lemme put it another way: This rumor is like what some people describe Bush as: "all hat and no cowboy." There's no THERE there!





Source(s):

.

Title 8, U.S. Code, Section 1401, quoted at the U.S. Customs-Immigration Service website "www.uscis.gov' in which it delineates between natural-born and natural-ized citizens AND states that the U.S. has no prohibition about U.S. citizens having dual citizenship/dual passports, just that the citizen has to use his/her U.S. passport when re-entering the U.S.; it also states that the Panama Canal Zone is/was NOT considered 'sovereign U.S. soil' AND further states that a parent CANNOT renounce their child's U.S. citizenship.



There is NO requirement that a President be born ON U.S. soil: Mitt Romney was born in Mexico, but is eligible by reason of at least one (both were) parent having been an American citizen.



Here's a hypothetical: suppose McCain had been born in a Japanese commercial airliner flying across the Pacific at 35,000 feet? American parent(s) = American citizen = Prez-eligible.



Time to give this haggard abused dogeared argument up: it's baseless. Period. On the other hand: if this is "only" costing $800,000 (verifiable source, PLEASE!), that's 1/10th of 1% of what Obama raised for his campaign, then that is a pretty inexpensive way to piss off a few thousand trailer park denizens... man-o-man, Obama's smart AND has a sense of humor, too. Boy, these next 8 years are gonna be 180 degrees out from the last 8.

Only $800,000? Chump change.... that's only 1/10 of 1% of the Wall Street bailout (or 1/100th of 1% of what it will REALLY cost: $8 TRILLION !!!).



However: be prepared for guffaws of laughter when the SC refuses to hear this 'case.' Then pull up a chair, light up a smoke, grab a beer and enjoy the inauguration on January 20,2009.



Is it true that "ignorance is its own reward"? Looks like it, huh?

Answer 5

Obama will be fine. That's what I think.

Answer 6

They will reject the plantiff's appeal.

Answer 7

Where do you get the date of December 5th? According to the Supreme Court website, the Berg case is not scheduled until the January 9th conference date (since the distribution date will be sometime between December 1st and 10th).



If I understand the status of the writ, it is a request to jump past normal procedures and have the case heard by the Supreme Court. They have already indicated their opinion on that by denying Berg's request for injunction.



The petition will not be granted. We will never know how many justices voted to grant the petition or which judges they were since that is never announced. The only way that you get any clue is if a Justice chooses to file a dissent to the denial of cert which happens maybe 4 or 5 times a year.



EDIT: For those interested in how I got my date, the official website (www.supremecourtus.gov) gives the tools for figuring this out. First, you go to the court rules section. When you go to the current rules, it says that cert petitions are circulated within 10 days after the respondents' filings are due or waived by all respondents. Then you go to the docket section and search for the Berg case and discover that the respondents' filings are currently due on December 1st. Still within the docket section, you look at the distribution schedule and find that cases distributed between December 1st and December 10th are on the January 9th conference date. (p.s. If you look further at the rules, you will see that it is unlikely that the case will be heard this term since the briefing deadlines would just barely allow it to be in the last argument session of the year.)

Answer 8

It will probably be a close vote but. personally, think it should be all for continuing. The country does not need a Pesident who has questions about the eligibility and what precendence would it set for the future if they did not even allow the case to go forward based on really no reason not too. I do believe President Elect Obama will be found and is eligible for the office of President and no I did not support him but to refuse to provide information that would show his eligibility is not a good thing and just makes people question it more. If the DN did verify his eligibility then they would have the paperwork and it should not be difficult to provide it for the court; if they didn;t and something comes up later then it would be very bad for the DNC and for the country. It might be a "silly" case according to some people but the more it is stonewalled and fought the more doubt or questions arise-provide the paperwork and then the questions go away. The question to me is not whether or not President Elect Obama is an American citizen but whether or not he accepted Indonesianm citizenship, is dual citizenship in Kenya, why the hiding is he was born in Kenya (citizenship would still be US and my opinion would still be native born-if he didn't accept dual or later become either a dual citizen or citizen of another country). Those are the bigger questions and if he is a dual citizen and has not renounced formally the other or became a citizen of a foriegn country (Indonesia whjile there) then it would bring up questions on eligibility in my mind as the intent was no US President should have split loyalty or citizenship with allegiance to a foriegn coiuntry. For those that think because he was a Senator then it has been resolved that requirement does not exist for a Congressman just the President and Vice President.