U.S. Supreme Court Tosses Orly Taitz's Latest Crazy Appeal Tied to Barack Obama's Citizenship

So, after having her latest appeal rejected this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court, where is Laguna Niguel birther/dentist/lawyer Orly Taitz to turn next? The Hague? Judge Judy? The Trill Symbiosis Commission?

The Supremes did not utter a peep while tossing the appeal contesting a $20,000 fine levied against Taitz for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit challenging President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship.

Take it away, HuffPo:

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from a lawyer who has been in the forefront of the challenge to President Barack Obama's citizenship.

The high court on Monday did not comment in refusing to hear the appeal filed by California lawyer and dentist Orly Taitz. She was contesting a $20,000 fine for filing what a federal judge determined was a frivolous lawsuit.

The suit was filed on behalf of Army Captain
Connie Rhodes, who sought to avoid deployment to Iraq by claiming Obama wasn't born in the United States and thus is ineligible to be president and commander in chief.

More troubling than Taitz is the fact that someone who buys into her crazy can rise to the rank of captain in the U.S. Army.
My Voice Nation Help
40 comments
Terrifiedcitizen
Terrifiedcitizen

You know, nearly everything concerning the office of president, is somehow tied to this issue. An old friend who is very much an independent thinker, and not so paralyzed with fear of things going wrong that he won’t speak, told me the following;

If the Supreme Court were to entertain the ‘birther’ issue and the literally mountains of proof against Obama's lawful citizenship, they would be forced to rule against him; therefore all of the legislation that he has signed would be null and void with no legal or lawful significance. The international bankers would be subdued by such an action and therefore you can understand why the Supreme Court justices have been quietly mandated "in the back room" to not allow any such issues to even be litigated. They call the lawsuit "frivolous" so that they do not have to examine, by their very own set of rules, all of the facts, and exposing details publicly.

There’s much more to this issue than merely the birth certificate itself… Who is to determine whether an action is frivolous or not until it has been litigated? It is not within the jurisdiction of ‘any’ US court to determine whether they will hear an issue or not... only to determine the facts of such an issue and render a ruling on which entity is correct. By labeling a lawsuit "frivolous" they have essentially ruled on the issues at hand before hearing them, with bias or malicious intent.

These appointed jurists have stated that the person who brought forth the lawsuit cannot even talk about it... and to enforce the fact that they don't wish to be confused with constitutional requirements of an elected servant’s qualifications, they fined the attorney (Ms. Orly Taitz) $20,000 to teach her and others a lesson, that this issue is not to be submitted before a biased court again.

To illustrate the danger of such a position, imagine someone murdered an innocent citizen such as yourself, and our republics highest jurists were instructed to call any efforts to bring the murderer to justice, ‘frivolous’… merely because the murderer enjoyed a top ranking position in government. Are crimes against the constitution any less heinous? Are not such crimes often considered treasonous?

What types of governments come to mind when you think of its citizens no longer having the very basic right to discuss openly, above a cautious whisper, the words and actions of their democratically elected politicians? Is this still the Republic you agreed to defend? Whether you think this attorney’s charges are ‘frivolous’ or serious, do you believe unconstitutional actions by the highest court in the republic sets a positive tone for future decisions; decisions that may someday affect you personally?

How much longer will the silent majority remain silent?

Jlc
Jlc

Just curious.....where was George Washington and his parents born?

Robert Laity
Robert Laity

Calling someone "Crazy" for wanting the Constitution adhered to is a grave disservice to America. Obama's place of birth,even if he were born in Hawaii,does not aid in his defense. Obama's father was a Brit. The US Constitution defines a Natural-Born Citizen. Obama is NOt one of those:http://www.thepostemail.com/20...http://americangrandjury.org/p...

In addition,Obama is prohibited by 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec. 2381 from "Holding any office under the United States". Obama is a Traitor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

BTW,SCOTUS Jusctices are NOT above the Law. Clarence Thomas's statement that the court is "Evading the isue" is tantamount to Misprision of TREASON and Felony. That is a Felony in itself.

CHS
CHS

Who are these left-wing judges? I met one once but he retired about 20 years ago.

katahdin
katahdin

President Obama was born in Hawaii, part of the United States. He has presented a perfectly legal birth certificate to prove this. More than adequete evidence exists to support that he was born in Hawaii. Government officials of the State of Hawaii have confirmed that he was born there. Since anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen, President Obama easily meets the Constitutional requirement to serve as president.

Birthers are entitled to believe in their fantasy definition of a natural born citizenif they wish, but the people who live outside of crazy world need not pay them any mind.

Guest
Guest

Does anyone seriously think that all Candidates for high office in this country are not "vetted" by FBI and/or Secret Service? How careless they must think we run this country!

Brian Williams
Brian Williams

She was a captain of dentistry -- not exactly airborne.

Eadgx2
Eadgx2

Orly Taitz qualifies for wacko of the century. She'll be hard to beat, even with 89 years left in the 21st.

What hole did she originally crawl out of?

Jenkan04
Jenkan04

Mr. ( I use the term lightly) Coker, you have no idea what you are talking about and apparently, and have not researched it very well. Orly Taitz has a solid case on the Presidents eligibility to be in office, but we have a left wing judicial system that is protecting him. The simple fact that Obama was not born in the U.S of two (2) "Natural Born" parents, makes him unqualified to seek or hold the office of President of the United States. Learn your constitution before making stupid comments to the world. The Constitution states the Candidate must be a "Natural Born Citizen". If you don't like the Constitution or believe in it, then I suggest you move to Cuba, Venezuela or Russia and write your articles.

By Law (The Constitution of the United States of America) which is the law of the land, President Obama is not Eligible to hold this office period!

Ronnie
Ronnie

Where is Squeeky?

Lvarfred58
Lvarfred58

Perhaps she should take her case to Arizona or to the Palin reality show.

20ftJesus
20ftJesus

Seriously, is OT a tranny? Those hands are enormous.

@Matt: Welcome back to work. Hippie.

Annoyed!
Annoyed!

There is NO "silent majority" - the majority of US citizens, me included, think you're NUTS. Give ONE example of "the literally mountains of proof against Obama's lawful citizenship" - just ONE. There isn't ANY evidence against it, much less "mountains"! All the evidence is in support of his birth on American soil. Please, you people are just nuts and totally annoying! Produce ONE piece of "evidence," c'mon!

RP in SA
RP in SA

"and our republics highest jurists were instructed to call any efforts to bring the murderer to justice, ‘frivolous’…"

Instructed by whom, exactly? The same person(s) who defined corporations as a living, breathing person in the Citizens United case? The same person(s) who handed all of us the first term of the George W. Bush presidency?

Maybe it's best that you remain a "Terrifiedcitizen" and just leave the rest of us in peace.

Robert Laity
Robert Laity

Anyone merely "Born" here is NOT a "Natural-Born Citizen". The definition deferred to by the Constitution is "one born in a country of two citizen parents". Obama's father was a foreigner. You seem to think that the child of two foreigners can be President merely because the child was born here.That is simply NOT the case. That would mean that a male and a female enemy of the USA could somehow,while passing through,have a baby here and that child of dubious ancestry could BE the President. That is ludicrous on it's face.

Throwaway1492
Throwaway1492

... This is the "government" we are talking about here, a group not exactly known for high efficiency. That being said, if any other candidate was uncertain of Obama's citizenship, they would have challenged it in an instant. Since that didn't happen, it doesn't really matter now where Obama was born. Get over it,Orly.

Jeff
Jeff

Don't forget - Orly is not only a lawyer but also a dentist (although I would have guessed proctologist.)

BoredWithWhackoBirthers
BoredWithWhackoBirthers

Jenkan04, what you've said is RIDICULOUS and UNTRUE. The President WAS born in the Uniited States and is legally eligible to be President. It's pathetic and insane to keep insisting on this, it's just not true. Orly Taitz does not have a case at all, she's attempted to forge "evidence" and no court has ever agreed with her. The Supreme Court is not in any way "left wing" and of course they've thrown all these cases out. There is NO evidence that the President was not born in the US and plenty of evidence that he was, including his birth certificate, the word of his relatives, the sworn testimony of Hawaii officials and not one but TWO separate newspaper announcements from 1961 stating he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. You, and Orly Taitz, have no evidence to the contrary and continuing to insist it isn't true against all the facts that show that it is is INSANE.

Bill T.
Bill T.

"The President must be a natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years." ref: the Constitution of the U. S. There is no reference to parents in the constitution. Please cite your reference in the constitution that indicates that in addition to be a natural born citizen that your parents must also be citizens.

Dweezle.Di
Dweezle.Di

I am wondering where you got the impression we have a Left Wing Courts system when most of the Supreme Court Justices were Bush and Shrub appointees?

It also cracks me up when Right Wingnuts talk about the "Liberal" Media when most modern media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations, example; Foux News...

katahdin
katahdin

Can you name a single Constitutional scholar who agrees with your fantasy definition of a natural born citizen?

macdoodle
macdoodle

Contrary to the arguments set forth above, Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural-born citizen of the United States, for the simple reason that he was born on American soil (in Hawaii, two years after it acquired statehood). The age and citizenship status of his parents at the time of his birth have no bearing on Obama's own citizenship.

Any confusion on this point is the result of misunderstanding the legal concepts of jus sanguinis (right of blood) and jus soli (right of birthplace) as they apply to citizenship in the United States. Here's how the website of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service explained the matter in 2008:

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents).

It is a fact that under the provisions of Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of president, but this disqualification does not apply to Barack Obama, who has been a citizen since birth.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/...

Jeff
Jeff

Why do you rightwing nuts constantly make up "facts" out of whole cloth to suit your political needs? I live in a fact-based reality. You should try it sometime.

Smarter than U
Smarter than U

Even if both his parents were not born in the United States, and Both of them were illegal aliens(which is not the case) Mr. Obama was born in the United States which makes him a Naturalized Citizen, which entitles him to be President of the United States.Get it D-BAG!Where are your ancestors from? I'll bet at some point in your history you were an illegal alien too!You need to read the constitution again. Come back when you've learned to read!

Heff
Heff

I guess you figured out what the High Courts could not. Seriously, the constitution does not say that at all. There is nothing about natural born parents. Stop learning the US Constitution from a loon from the Soviet Union.

Bajbaj
Bajbaj

You are an idiot!

katahdin
katahdin

Thomas was talking about Puerto Ricans in that tape. Birthers: born to fail.

katahdin
katahdin

And yet it has been settled law for over a hundred years that anyone born on American soil, with a couple of narrow exceptions, is a natural born citizen of the United States. How is it that nobody ever heard of this Vattel two-citizen-parents nonsense until 2008? Suddenly when Barack Obama, son of a non-American father, was elected president, it suddenly became impossible for the son of a foreigner born here to become president. Because nobody ever heard of the rule before 2008. It's not as if President Obama hid his foreign father from the world. In 2004, he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, describing himself on national television as the son of "a mother from Kansas and a father from Kenya." He's a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School. Don't you think he would have hidden his father's nationality if he thought it would be a problem.

Birther: failing the test of history, facts and rational thought since 2008.

gtm615
gtm615

Beg to differ with you. Nearly 450, approximately 1/3, were appointed by Clinton.

Robert Laity
Robert Laity

You are NOT correct. To be POTUS one must have been BORN in the USA of two parents both of which are citizens. That is the definition of an NBC found in the "Law of Nations" which Congress incorporated into the Constitution. See Art. 1,Sec.8

Eadgx2
Eadgx2

If his mother was an American citizen, and he was born on American soil ( a US state or territory), Barack Obama would be a native-born citizen, not a naturalized citizen. A naturalized citizen is one who, coming from another country, qualified through residence and by passing the US Citizenship exam, to be "naturalized." Obama is as American as I am (and I was born in New York City, which as I recall is a part of the United States, though some may wish it were not).

Jeremy
Jeremy

Actually Jenkan04 is HALF correct.

Furthermore, this wouldn't be an issue if Mr. Obama would provide a birth certificate proving his U.S. citizenship.

@Smarter than U: where exactly is the backing that proves your statement is true? If you can't provide that then you should change your name to complete moron with a degree in stupidity.

We as Americans are complete pussies!! IF this was 100 years ago our country would be in civil war!!

Dweezle.Di
Dweezle.Di

SUPREME Court Justices:Roberts appointed by ShrubKagan ObamaSotomayor ObamaAlito ShrubScalia ReaganKennedy ReaganThomas Bush IGinsburg ClintonBryer Clinton

Reagan, Bush, & Shrub were all Republicansso 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, And Clinton was a Blue Dog Democrat just as Obama seems to be showing to be.

"Kucinich for President in 2012"

Bill T.
Bill T.

The parental clause applies to citizenship status persons born outside of the U. S. by U. S. citizen parents. It provides that a person born outside the U. S. of at least one U. S. citizen is also considered to be natural born. This is a liberalization of the definition, not a restriction. Otherwise the claim would be that any child born of a service member outside the U. S. even if BOTH parents were citizens would not be a citizen since they didn't meet the (implied) requirement of having been born with in the country.

StoptheMadness
StoptheMadness

The President provided a birth certificate proving his US citizenship in 2008:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/pol...

No one is really due any more than that. That was sufficient and satisfied everyone who wasn't insanely obsessed and desperate to get rid of the President.

In addition to that proof that the President is a natural born citizen, two Hawaii state officials have attested that the state has the President's birth certificate, that they have personally examined it and it is genuine and that, consistent with Hawaii state law and like every other original birth certificate in their files, it's private and sealed, only the person who's cert it is can request it:

http://www.factcheck.org/elect...

The President has supplied the official Hawaii state-issued document and that is enough. But, in addition to that, there's two newspaper announcements from 1961 announcing the birth of a son to Mr. and Mrs. Barack Obama of Honolulu:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/...

That's all EVIDENCE, observable physical evidence proving the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii and you have no evidence that he wasn't. It really is NUTS to keep insisting he wasn't when all this evidence shows that he was.

Why are you people stuck on this? I really can't understand. What's next, the Secret Service went back in time and planted the newspaper announcements? When are you going to stop this?

Josh
Josh

He's not "half correct". He's a HALF-WIT

Now Trending

Anaheim Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Fashion

Loading...