Thomas Breaks Custom: Forces Supreme Court To Look At Obama Citizen Case

[kpete]

Clarence Thomas officially nuts: "In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama's status as a United States citizen." Funny, he didn't have much to say about the fact that Bush and Cheney were both from Texas, or that McCain was born in Panama....
http://sideshow.me.uk/sdec08.htm#12041313

..........................

U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
By James Wright
AFRO Staff Writer

(December 3, 2008) - In a highly unusual move, U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of an East Brunswick, N.J. attorney who has filed a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s status as a United States citizen.

Thomas’s action took place after Justice David Souter had rejected a petition known as an application for a stay of writ of certiorari that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the 44th president of the United States and its first African-American president.

The court has scheduled a Dec. 5 conference on the writ -- just 10 days before the Electoral College meets.

The high court’s only African American is bringing the matter to his colleagues as a result of the writ that was filed by attorney Leo Donofrio. Donofrio sued the New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Wells, contending that Obama was not qualified to be on the state’s presidential ballot because of Donofrio’s own questions about Obama citizenship.

............................

more at:
http://www.afro.com/DesktopModules/EngagePublish/printerfriendly.aspx?itemId=2273&PortalId=1&TabId=456

[Diamonique]

1. I don't have the words to express how I feel about Thomas.

I know this isn't going anywhere, but why even waste the Court's time with such bull.

Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment to Blacks nationwide. What an ass.

[Fridays Child]

3. Yeah, I hold more affection for turds in the kitty litter box, which means that...

...I can't even call him a piece of shit.

[Jade Fox]

21. Just when you think he can't get any more pathetic...

and bizarre, Thomas does something like this.

He's a bitter, sick little man.

[w4rma]

2. Awesome! Now the rest of the court can publicly shoot that partisan flunky down! (nt)

[MaineDem]

4. I certainly hope so! n/t

[Phx_Dem]

68. That's pretty much where I'm at.

But Thomas is still a huge dick. He's never opened his yap the entire time he's been on the court, now he decides to take on Obama, the U.S. President with a 78 percent approval rating, whose election was celebrated and cheered around the globe. One might wonder if he took the case in order to deny it, but we're talking about Thomas here.

[RichGirl]

5. Maybe this will be good in the long run.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the last eight years has been that with all the crimes committed by the administration, nothing has ever even been investigated, much less taken to the Supreme Court. For this BC thing to go this far, I think some of them will be satisfied and let go of it. The fact that it is the black judge doing it...may shoot down the idea that all blacks are for Obama.

[WI_DEM]

6. I despise Thomas--he took advantage of everything as far as affirmative action is concerned

and now that he got what he wanted he doesn't want others to get the same benefits. He is a proven sexual harrasser who should never have been put on the highest court of the land. On that court he has been nothing but a silent partner for Fat Tony. And now, he wants to try to to stop the first African-American president from coming to office. The guy is beyond contempt.

[thereismore]

7. Thomas surely is building his legacy. After years of slumber, he finally feels strongly about

something. Asshole.

[high density]

8. Go ahead and put a final nail in the coffin on this issue

I'd like these people to just try and prove a negative. It's fun to watch.

[dolo amber]

50. This.

:thumbsup:

[cali]

9. OK, this article is ridiculous

What Thomas did, is just not that unusual. This is an alarmist take on the situation. Yes, Thomas is an asshole, but this is just not some rare legal move.

[elocs]

15. Well, this is DU, where alarmist takes are the norm and welcomed with open arms. n/t

[WeDidIt]

17. It's actually done fairly regularly

It's how they shut down vexatious litigants.

One Justice refuses the case. It gets resubmitted. A second Justice takes it to conference where it promptly dies in a 9-0 decision not to take the case.

[yardwork]

33. Watch it be a 7-2 decision not to take the case.

Or maybe even a 5-4 decision not to take the case. How low can they go?

[WeDidIt]

61. 5-4 against taking the case means they take the case

It takes four votes in conference to take a case.

[onenote]

43. exactly correct.

Notwithstanding what all the "experts" on this thread are saying, what Thomas did was absolutely standard procedure.

[Land Shark]

51. You miss the point: the Supreme Court has an OPTION to attempt to redecide the presidency

whether or not they pass it up, it's still news. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7951296 for more information (where you already posted roughly similar comments)

[cali]

56. I read your thread

and sorry, I think YOU miss the point. The facts do not lend themselves to your argument.

[Land Shark]

70. ok, but it's difficult to respond to an empty conclusion like yours without any reasons given.

What was my conclusion that you disagreed with and why?

[yardwork]

32. The article says that it's unusual for another justice to take it up once it's been rejected.

Souter rejected it, so it's unusual for Thomas to step in and take it up.

[onenote]

44. the article is wrong

See post number 42.

[yardwork]

49. ok, no reason to be rude about the correction. I'm no expert and I believed the article.

[onenote]

54. Sorry if my post came across as rude. Wasn't my intent.

[yardwork]

57. No hard feelings. Thanks.

[cali]

47. no it's not unusual.. the author is ignorant.

[Land Shark]

52. They can go round robin until it's submitted to 5 justices, so it's not unusual to conference it

that being said, any case that gives the supreme court the option to decide the presidency is not routine, even if a specific procedural event can be argued to be routine.

There are up to five cases in the US Supreme Court right now, with more to come as the filter up. This turbulence from the right is not at all over even if all cases decided on tomorrow are rejected. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7951296

[Diamonique]

67. The case before the SC doesn't give them the option to decide the presidency.

Even if they take the case -- which I doubt -- they won't be looking into Obama's eligibility, because the case before the Court isn't about his eligibility.

[Land Shark]

73. Yes it is; the Donofrio case is about the eligibility of both mccain and obama and socialist cand.

and says all three are not eligible. That's the lead case. Berg was dismissed pre-election, this is a different case, plus there's other states filtering up.

Any case where obama is a defendant, if a decision is made against him, it's binding under collateral estoppel and can be used in any court or other proceeding against him. He has to win every single one in which he's a defendant.

[onenote]

78. actually, Obama's eligibity is not the issue raised in the nutjob's petition to the SCOTUS

Rather, the nutjob's petition challenges the decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that the nutjob doesn't have legal standing to file a lawsuit regarding Obama's citizenship/eligibility to be president. In other words, in the highly unlikely event the SCOTUS decided to hear the nutjob's case, the most that they could consider and decide is whether the NJ court should have let the nutjob's case go forward instead of dismissing it for lack of standing.

[Land Shark]

71. Yeah it's not "abnormal" but ANY time the Supreme Court gets near the presidency it's news.

it just is. Sorry, that's because the presidency is important, and the Supreme Court has a record on the presidency. It's not good.

Cali, your "calm down" job is essentially analogous to telling moms and dads who've just found out their kid is with a child molester that victimized them previously to just CALM DOWN, you're BEING RIDICULOUS. If anyone thinks this analogy at all exaggerated, then I submit they need to review bush v. Gore and the fact that it cost us an 8 year Bush presidency.

Keeping calm is fine. I'm all for that. But Closing your eyes to facts is something else. I won't begrudge you the right to keep your peace of mind, if you sense that you'd "lose it" to stress if you let it in. I just don't think you can go around policing your own level of denial to make sure everyone else shares it.

Did you know they're claiming up to 50,000 fedexes/letters sent to the Supreme Court in the last few days demanding they take the case? Here's a link updated early yesterday showing 31,545 communications http://hillarysvillage.net/showthread.php?p=34499

The above doesn't freak me out, it may be exaggerated, or made up, but nor can I conclude that it definitely isn't true either. Just another fact for the mix.

So, I'm still cool calm and collected, but now this child molester is getting egged on by what seems like unprecedented levels of mail to mess with our presidency. We can't bury our heads in the sand either. The supreme court doesn't really need law or fact to rule the way it wants to rule.

[WeDidIt]

10. The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to determine eligibility.

That jurisdiction resides with the legislations of the several states in how they determine the choosing of electors and with the Congress in how they certify the results of the Electoral College.

Under the constitution, the SCOTUS has no authority in this whatsoever. This is a check on the executive branch by the legislative branch as written into the constitution. The SCOTUS cannot interfere. In fact, the Congress would have the authority to nullify any decision by the SCOTUS in regards to this and there isn't thing one the sCOTUS could do about it as it is within the authority of the Congress to determine the outcome of the election. Only the Congress can declare a President Elect not qualified to be president (12th amendment).

So teh SCOTUS can do whatever it wants. This election gets decided in the Congress on January 6.

[cali]

11. January 56th? The Electors meet on December 15th

Doesn't that settle the matter?

[WeDidIt]

14. Nope.

First of all, the election results from New Jersey have already been certified, thus the electors have been chosen, thus what Donofrio is requesting is an overturning of a certified election result. The electors will meet on December 15th to vote, that's true.

Regardless of the vote by the electors, the Congress certifies the results on January 6 in a joint session. Constitutionally, the Congress does not have to accept the results of the Electoral College if objection is made and passed by both houses (3 U.S.C. 15).

so even if the SCOTUS decides to stay the Electoral College election, the Congress can act independently on January 6. In fact, the SCOTUS could declare Barack Obama ineligible and not a "natural born citizen" and the Congress could still make him president on January 6 because the sole determination under the constitution to determihne eligibility resides first with the states in how they choose electors and then with the Congress in how they certify the results of the Electoral College. The SCOTUS can say anything it wants, it carries no weight whatsoever under the constitution.

[zipplewrath]

26. It's what really pissed me off about 2000

The court had no real role in the Florida fiasco. They never should have taken the case. The only reason their decision had any real effect is because the GOP controlled the process all the way to the top. They held control in the legislature, and were well on their way to taking legislative action to direct the outcome (basically appointing their own electors apart from the actual election results). It isn't clear there was any ability of the feds to stop them. Then it would have ended up at the federal congress where the Florida results could have been challenged. The GOP controlled things there too and probably would have certified/accepted the Flordia action and Bush would have become president anyway.

I suspect that Gore knew all this and is why he didn't try to fight after the SC decision. Even though the decision was wrong in innumerable ways, the only way to "fight" it was outside of the federal courts and the GOP held all the cards there. What pissed me off, and what pisses me off to this day is that the court SHOULD have stayed out of it so the elected people could have followed this path. THEN they could have been held accountable to the electorate. Here in Florida it could have been of little consequence (they elect Harris after all). But in other states, congress critters might have taken some heat for their votes. What the SC did was to provide the ultimate "cover" for the elected representatives because the vast majority of the population didn't understand the process and realize that their decision wasn't anywhere near the end of the process and in fact was meaningless to it. If the congress had been controlled by the democrats, or even better, the Florida Legislature, this would have in fact borne itself out because Gore would have assuredly gone to those bodies for relief. I dunno if he would have succeeded, but THAT'S where it should have been decided. And in a sense, it is where it was decided, most folks just don't really understand that.

[Land Shark]

53. To avoid having courts decide presidency, you'd let congress re-decide it?

That more likely than not would at least get some sort of Democrat in, but that's not guaranteed, either. More importantly, it sets a precedent that Congress can override the election by the people and substitute its own choice, when Article II says Representatives and Senators are NOT supposed to ever be electors, except in case of a candidate not getting a majority (then the vote, 1 state 1 vote in the House) or in the case of the death of the president. (20th amendment) Without those "trigger" events, there's no constitutional authority for the senate and/or house to act as electors. It's prohibited by Article I, section 1.

[zipplewrath]

62. They can dispute any election

They can challenge the electors or reported results. It's been done before. I'd rather that the congress do it than the SC. It's the way the constitution lays it out.

[No Elephants]

79. The SCOTUS has jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution. Whether the plaintiffs have standing

is questionable, however. I don't see anyone but McCain having standing to challenge Obama, umless whoever came in third challenges both McCain and Obama.

[Clio the Leo]

12. The fact that the MSM isn't reporting this is all we need to care about...

... it's a non-issue.

"ring gate" got more press than this.

[Land Shark]

74. What about msnbc? Chicago tribune? Does the MSM define reality for us? The corporate media?

In my career of over a dozen years in law I never saw the media report consistently on the important cases, they don't pay their reporters much and few reporters are lawyers who understand what's going on in courts, so legal coverage is spotty at best. I wouldn't take my cues from the MSM on legal issues.

[AspenRose]

13. Personal vendetta.

[TexasObserver]

16. I've said Thomas is doing this because Obama named him as unfit to serve on the court.

This is personal.

Either that, or Thomas wants to PROVE that Obama was right, which he was.

Thomas is an idiot. How he ever sat as a judge at any level is a mystery. He's aggressively stupid, and that's why the GOP put him on there.

[WeDidIt]

18. Actually, it's a fairly routine process

Souter was the Justice responsible and he decliend the case. Donofrio sought another, more friendly Justice, so presented it to Thomas who scheduled it for conference.

We'll know it's just a process to shut down a vexatious litigant if the case is declined in a 9-0 decision..

[TexasObserver]

19. No, it isn't, as the article notes.

[WeDidIt]

20. Like I said, we'll know after the conference is over.

It's not done consistently, but it's been done in the past to shut vexatious litigants up.

[TexasObserver]

22. If the vote is 9-0, you'll be right about the purpose. Otherwise, no.

If Thomas joins the other 8 in voting against it, you'll be right that he was employing a strategem.

If he votes for it, you'll be wrong.

You do not know what his purpose is, which means it is open to speculation. You may be right, but you may also be wrong.

[WeDidIt]

23. Agreed

I think I'm right, though. If not, it'll prove Thomas is a piece of shit who should be impeached, though.

[TexasObserver]

25. I actually hope you're right.

I hate to think that Clarence Thomas would stoop this low, and my natural inclination regarding him is to assume the worst. I hope I'm wrong and he's simply putting it to bed. I'll salute you if you're right, and won't crow if you're wrong.

[WeDidIt]

28. Although I always hate being wrong

this is one case where I'd REALLY hate being wrong because it would mean a Justice on the highest court in the land is nothing more than a vindictive little piece of shit.

[yardwork]

35. I think we already know that, unfortunately, about the justice in question.

[Hepburn]

59. IMO, this has been proven about Thomas several times.

Just ask Anita Hill.

IMO

[onenote]

42. the article is wrong. what Thomas did is standard procedure.

According to the author of the leading treatise on Supreme COurt practice, "If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution."

http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opinions_v2_scdr3_2004.pdf

[sallyseven]

24. How smart is Thomas?

His mother is a citizen therefore he is one also. John McCain was born in Panama. You only need one parent to be a citizen and that makes you one too. He is too fking dumb to be on the court.

[Splinter Cell]

45. That's not true

You don't need either parent to be a US citizen, you just need to be born in the United States. Both parents could be from BFE and it wouldn't matter if you were born on US soil.

[Land Shark]

75. The answer is BOTH, you can be born in the US or born abroad to US parent nt

[Peregrine Took]

27. I just started reading "Strange Justice" about the Anita Hill/Thomas hearings

and it says that 3 years after wards he was still obsessed with her and full of rage about what happened at the hearings.

Ironically, he stated to someone that he never really wanted to be a "judge" at all let alone a Supreme Court Justice and 'would rather be a small business owner.

[redstate_democrat]

29. Clarence Thomas has a raging inferiority complex.

He doesn't believe he deserves to be where he is (rightfully so), and has this internal guilt about his position in life. He thinks he owes it to the folks who put him where he is. As a result, he acts like a total overcompensating ass. He proves every day he serves on the court that his internal feelings and suspicions are correct. He does not belong on that court at all.

[political_Dem]

34. I second that.

Clarence Thomas was a horrible pick to be placed in the spot of Thurgood Marshall. Like the GOP's use of Sarah Palin, Thomas was mainly put there in the SCOTUS for window dressing and for parroting Republican policies. Nothing else.

With this news, he has hit a new low. :(

I just hope that Anita Hill gets the last laugh in all of this.

[kiranon]

40. Agree. n/t

[liam_laddie]

46. Clarence has put in a lot of "hard work"

earning his well-deserved and accurately-observed inferiority complex. Internal guilt for certain.

[yardwork]

36. I wish he were a small business owner, too.

Let's take up a collection to provide Thomas with seed money for his new business if he'll retire from the Court.

[Lil Missy]

63. Of course he was still obsessed and full of rage 3 years later. Abusive pricks

don't like to be revealed or confronted.

[Diamonique]

69. Thomas is still full of rage.

He's just a sad, bitter human being. Full of self-hatred and very low self-esteem. He's the last person that should ever have been nominated to the SC.

[political_Dem]

30. Now the name, "Benedict Thomas" has been given new meaning.

I thought his association with John Danforth was enough (In Congress back in the day, Danforth voted against sanctions for South Africa when the country was under the apartheid system. That is one of many atrocious things in his long career).

Now, this truly takes the cake. There is a special place in hell for this man. I don't even think the ninth circle is good enough for Thomas. :grr:

[yardwork]

37. I'd forgotten about John Danforth. Ick.

[atimetocome]

31. He needs a simple majority to put it on the docket:

.........It would take a simple majority of five justices to put Donofrio’s emergency stay on the oral argument docket. Because it is an emergency by design, the argument would take place within days.

Donofrio wants the court to order the Electoral College to postpone its Dec. 15 proceedings until it rules on the Obama citizenship. He is using the 2000 case Bush vs. Gore case as precedent, arguing that it is of such compelling national interest that it should be given priority over other cases on the court’s docket.

“The same conditions apply here,” Donofrio said in his letter to the court, “as the clock is ticking down to Dec. 15, the day for the Electoral College to meet.”
Audrey Singer, a senior fellow at Washington’s Brookings Institution, who is an expert on immigration, said that the Donofrio matter is “going nowhere.

[redstate_democrat]

38. I can't believe Thomas is such a raging IMBECILE

After claiming Bush v Gore could not be used as precedent, Thomas now presents this case to the conference on the basis of the emergency nature of the case based on the same per Bush v Gore?

WHAT A FUCKING MORON HE IS.

[yardwork]

39. The most they could possibly get would be four votes.

There are only four Justices willing to make complete and utter fools of themselves over this stupid issue. I hope that the vote is 9-0 against taking the case, but the most they could possible get would be four votes in favor of taking it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. Yeah, Two of the 5 that selected Chimp are no longer there (one dead, one retired)

And I'm reasonably sure that Kennedy regretted his vote, so he wouldn't be that stupid again.

[Jim Lane]

60. Four votes would be enough to take the case

By longstanding practice, the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari (i.e., agrees to hear the case) if four Justices favor doing so.

The hardcore right-wing four, though, are canny strategists. They might decide not to take the case if it became clear that Justice Kennedy would vote against them. They'd probably prefer to leave the question hanging around as fodder for the lunatic right, as opposed to having it fully argued and then resolved in Obama's favor.

Donofrio is also asking for a stay of the Electoral College votes. To get that, he would indeed need five votes on the Court. The special rule about four Justices applies only to grants of certiorari.

[onenote]

41. Thomas did not "break custom". In fact, he followed it.

Before someone writes a piece about the Supreme Court it would help if they would familiarize themselves with SCOTUS practice. And that goes for the law professor who inaccurately described what happens when an application to a single justice is turned down and then resubmitted to another justice. As one of the leading scholars on Supreme Court practice has written with respect to the process whereby a request for a stay is submitted to single justice:

"If the assigned Justice denies an application, then the application can be re-submitted to any other Justice...under modern practice, renewed applications usually are submitted to the entire Court for resolution." http://www.appellate.net/docketreports/In_Chambers_Opinions_v2_scdr3_2004.pdf

To give the law professor in the story the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that his statement that a Justice receiving a re-submitted application typically "rejects" really meant that such re-submitted petitions are rarely granted, he is right. But Thomas (although he could have) didn't grant the petition. He didn't reject it either. He did what is commonly done -- he submitted to the entire court for resolution.

Sorry, but Thomas can't be faulted on this one at all.

[arewenotdemo]

72. On what basis are the justices deciding whether or not to SUBMIT

the resolution?

Does not submission generally imply that the resolution has some merit?

And what does Souter's rejection of it imply to you?

[onenote]

77. as explained several times: it was submitted for the justices to consider per standard practice

The nutjob bringing this case filed an emergency petition for stay with the Justice assigned to circuit from which the case originated. That Justice was Souter, and as is almost always the case with this sort of emergency petition, he denied it. The nutjob then, as permitted by the SCOTUS rules, re-submitted his petition to another Justice, namely Thomas. Thomas, following standard practice when a once-rejected emergency petition is re-filed, referred the matter to the court for consideration at its regular conference, which happens to be today. It really wouldn't have mattered which justice the nutjob went to second -- even if he had gone to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she would have done the same thing as Thomas--kicked it to the conference so it could be disposed of once and for all.

[arewenotdemo]

80. Thanx for replying.....

:dem:

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Follow Clarence Thomas's strings to the Heritage Foundation.

Are his phone records public record?

[Hepburn]

58. I would LOVE to slap some fucking sense into Clarence Thomas...

...as a lawyer, I find him to be a complete idiot.

What totally got to me???? Clarence is suppose to be a replacement for the late, great Thurgood Marshall. GMAFB ~~ that is like replacing a Rolls Royce with a Yugo!

Asshole...total and complete asshole...and a clueless RW one at that!

[Lil Missy]

64. Fine. Let the USSC shoot it down and put the dumb freepers out of their misery.

[Land Shark]

76. There's a long string of cases filtering up, this won't end things... nt

[Cha]

65. It just goes to show ya..you can be on the

highest court in the Nation and still one of the dumbest fucks ever to walk the Earth.

[pageman551]

66. All I can say is "Wow"

I never would've thought that a Supreme Court Justice was capable of something this pathetic. Then, sadly, I remembered that 4 guys on this court gave Bush the election in 2000, so I guess it was naive of me to think otherwise.

Right now, everyone is focusing very hard on how well he selects his Cabinet. Although these picks are important (especially in Treasury), the picks Obama makes for the Supreme Court are going to be huge. If he serves two terms, he could appoint several judges and completely shape the court for the next couple decades. The next big court issue coming: Gay marriage. In the next 10-15 years, a Gay marriage case will come to the Court, and if Obama has appointed enough of the right types of judges, the battle could end. Which would be good. Not to mention the many privacy issues that are going to be debated in the court in the coming years. And the various federal bench appointments he makes will be quite interesting as well. Could be a huge part of his legacy.


(Side note: When are spell checkers going to stop highlighting "Obama" as a spelling error?)

[Cobalt-60]

81. Clarence Thomas is a waste of skin. EOM