Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Any comments on the recusal motion sought during the previous conference over the challenge to Obama's authority being brought up again to SCOTUS?

here are some pertinent pages:
---------------------------------------------
Free Republic page:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2675406/posts

Wnd page:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264897

WND
" Feb 17, 2011
In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another "conference" on a legal challenge to Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.

The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.

It was in January (see below) that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse."
----------------------------------------------
Wnd page:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255733

WND
"jan 25,2011
Lawyers working for a retired military officer who is challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to be president say the U.S. Supreme Court appears to have broken its own rules by failing to respond to a pending recusal motion, thus conceding the point and possibly requiring a new conference vote among the seven remaining justices, including four mostly conservative, on whether the high court will hear arguments over Obama's legitimacy."

----------------------------------------------
I know some don't regard WND as a legitimate news source however they are reporting the facts here; The Supreme Court has scheduled a conference concerning the challenge to Obama's eligibility and the recusal motion.

Love to hear a lawyer's perspective on this. (not the merits of the challenge so much as the recusal motion being improperly handled and therefore being conceded to which means a new vote in conference on whether to hear the case or not and that Sotomayor and Kagan won't be allowed to take part in said conference.)

Some clerk got chewed out over that omission i'm guessing.

simple solution, no cooperation, no money.

Applies both to the UN and 'pals'.

The upside of the story you have posted, Professor, is that the Sec'y of State, as well as her President, are clearly demonstrating complete incompetence in foreign affairs.

So . . . that should rightly nip all this silly talk about Hillary running for POTUS in 2016 in the bud!

The downside of the story is that the Sec'y of State, as well as her President, are clearly demonstrating complete incompetence in foreign affairs.

So . . . apparently knowing (that in foreign affairs) no one in the current Administration is worth their salt, we are on notice that we will actually have to hunker down and live with that frightening prospect for two years, give or take a month or so!

But you know what . . . I'm an optimist. And as such, I am always looking for the bright side.

Here it is, unvarnished:

We lived through Jimmy Carter, in spite of the malaise as expressed in his "Crisis of Confidence" speech.

I look at it this way . . . Barack Obama could have made Hillary his Veep, no?

That way, the current Sec'y State would likely be Joe Biden! Or, John Kerry!

Oh boy!!

So, let's count our blessings. We'll muddle through.

And, we'll elect a President in 2012 who will, through what Abraham Lincoln called the "mystic chords of memory" reconnect us to "the better angels of our nature."

While Israel is not completely blameless and unstained, her enemies have instigated and promulgated war, calumny and terrorism against her with the intent of obliterating the Jewish nation state, along with the historic Jewish population in the Middle East.

Most of the West has promised, then reneged, upon a covenant with the Jews who would establish a nation state upon diasporas, pogroms and holocausts visited upon them by modern civilization. By the 21 c., it apparently lies mostly with the US to uphold the honor and ideals of the Enlightenment, 2oth century agreements with European and Russian Jewisn victims, and of All Decency, but finally we choose not to.

Who can be surprised by the prevalent formerly Marxist now Progressivist anti-Semitic approach American "liberals" are taking, if western Jewry itself is heavily invested in Democratic darker victimhood Party politics and divided over the Palestinian cause? On one hand, this is proof that Jews aren't singularly tribal; OTOH, it's evidence that paleolithic leftist politics are an unaffordable, apologetic and self-loathing relativistic chic that would relegate moral and workable civilization to oblivion.

G__, Y----- help us.

"To which the response from the P.A. delegates was: 'Jump higher.'"

Actually, I think it was, "Bow lower."

How low can you go?