The case of Hollister v. Soetoro will be distributed for conference on Friday, March 4, at the Supreme Court. As you recall, the judge in this case deemed Hollister’s case frivolous as Obama’s eligibility had been ‘twittered’ and thus resolved. He dismissed the case and then threatened sanctions. What he forgot to do was dismiss the case based on standing, as all the other judges have.
John Hemenway, attorney for Hollister, directly challenged the Supreme Court to uphold its duty to their oath in protecting the Constitution.
A veteran attorney who has pursued a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility since he was elected is telling the U.S. Supreme Court that if its members continue to “avoid” the dispute they effectively will “destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system.”
Hemenway had submitted a separate motion for the recusal of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan on the basis of their financial interest in Obama’s continuance. Apparently the Supreme Court broke its own rules, called it a ‘request’, and Sotomayor and Kagan were involved in the decision to deny Hollister’s petition for writ without comment in December 2010.
Based on their failure to follow their own procedures, Hollister’s case is now back before the Supremes in conference–this time we hope without Sotomayor and Kagan. There is no guarantee whether they will indeed recuse themselves; if they do not, we have that much more information to eventually impeach both Sotomayor and Kagan.
From WND’ s interview:
We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter,” Hemenway wrote in a petition for rehearing before the high court. “A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president.
“Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away,” Hemenway said. (emphasis added)
In perhaps the most incisive and challenging statement of the petition, Hemenway states:
“To continue to avoid the issue will destroy the constitutional rule of law basis of our legal system when it is under vigorous assault as surely as if the conscious decision were made to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter.”
The Supremes have no ‘standing’ issue to hide behind in this case; if they choose to deny without comment they have indeed confirmed that they made a “conscious decision… to cease preserving and protecting our founding charter”.
With eyes wide open, we will truly see if any of them have the integrity to live up to their oath of office.
And our plans just get that much clearer.
Sure is time to follow Red Pill’s advice.