Scalia Was Almost Never The Most Conservative Justice On The Supreme Court

A very interesting report with good charts:

With the death of Antonin Scalia on Saturday, the Supreme Court lost not only its longest-serving justice but also the most outspoken member of its conservative wing. A careful analysis of his tenure, however, shows that Scalia was almost never the most conservative justice on the court, and in fact moved leftward during the second half of his 30 years on the bench. With the exception of the 2014 term, he was usually in the majority in the court’s rulings, and the future direction of the court pivots on his replacement.

READ MORE

20 Face-Melting Quotes from Late Justice Antonin Scalia Will Make You Miss Him Even More

Rest in Peace, Justice Scalia

On Originalism:

On this day, when we’re celebrating our constitutional heritage, I urge you to be faithful to that heritage – to impose on our fellow citizens only the restrictions that are there in the Constitution, not invent new ones, not to invent the right because it’s a good idea.

On the decline of the Supreme Court:

Day by day, case by case, the Supreme Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize.

READ MORE

Justice Anonin Scalia: It is “absurd” to think the Constitution bans the government from supporting religion

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an audience Saturday that while the United States was intentionally founded without an established church, it was never intended to be “neutral” toward religion itself.

Speaking about religious freedom at Archbishop Rummel High School in a Louisiana suburb of New Orleans, Scalia insisted that in American constitutional tradition, there has always been a presumption of the benefit of religion for society.

It is “absurd” to think the Constitution bans the government from supporting religion, he said.

READ MORE

The shit has now, officially, hit the fan!

No. 08A524

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Gail Lightfoot, Neil B. Turner, Kathleen Flanagan, James M. Oberschain, Camden W. McConnell, Pamela Barnett, Evelyn Bradley

v.

Debra Bowen, Secretary of The State Of California

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS

Orly Taitz, ESQ.

Attorney for the Petitioners

26302 La Paz

Mission Viejo CA 92691

949-683-5411

TO: THE HONORABLE JOHN J. ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE

Motion to Reconsider

Petitioners, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, submit this motion for reconsideration due to the following reasons:

The Clerk of this Court, Danny Bickel, of his own volition and on his own authority refused to file of record, docket, and forward to the Chief Justice and Associate Justices Petitioners’ Supplemental Brief presented on January 15, 2009.

The Rules of this Court provide that supplemental briefs are allowed, when there is a new law or changed circumstance in the case.

On January 8, 2009, Barack Obama was confirmed as President by the Congress, at which time it was timely to file a supplemental brief, requesting this Court to determine that Mr. Obama is not eligible to serve, according to the terms of the Constitution.

According to the 20th amendment Mr. Biden must be appointed president pro tempore, until the president qualifies or new president is chosen.

This supplemental motion has made the underlining petition proper and timely according to the changed circumstances of the electoral vote and subsequent confirmation of Congress.

The Clerk of this Court, Mr. Bickel categorically refused to file this brief in the docket, stating that he would send it back to the undersigned counsel with an explanation. Nothing was sent back and no explanation provided.

Due to the fact that all mention of this case was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court on January 21, 2009, one day after the inauguration and two days before this Court was to meet regarding this matter, this sua sponte by someone prejudiced the cause of the petitioners.

Only after numerous phone calls from outraged citizens, members of the media and state representatives, was the case reentered on the docket in the evening of January the 22nd, shortly before the meeting of the Justices held on the morning of January 23rd.

No explanation was provided by the Supreme Court for this occurrence.

When an attorney, licensed with the Supreme Court, Ms. Teresa Ward, called the court to inquire about the location online of the docket, a deputy clerk put her on hold for several minutes, then claimed that all dockets were unavailable due to a computer error that affected all cases. However Ms. Ward could clearly see other case dockets, going back years, including closed cases which had not been erased, This was done by performing a name search using ‘Lightfoot,’ as the search term.

Similarly, after the case was reentered on the docket, Mr. Bickel claimed, that the case never disappeared. However, a number of citizens have written affidavits and screenshots were made of the case disappearing from the docket and reappearing at a later date.

Further, a few days before hearing this petition in the conference of the full Supreme Court, eight out of nine Supreme Court Justices had a private closed door meeting with Mr. Obama, who was a party of interest and subject of this petition, wherein there may have been ex parte communication that prejudiced the petitioners.

Further, on March 9, 2009 at a book signing ceremony in Los Angeles, California the undersigned counsel had an opportunity to talk to Associate Justice Scalia and had an opportunity to ask about this case and inquired, as to why the case was not forwarded from the conference to the oral argument. Justice Scalia had no knowledge about my case. Similarly he had no knowledge about any cases brought in front of the Supreme Court, that challenged Obama’s eligibility for presidency. The only reasonable explanation is that the clerks of the court did not provide the case to the Justices at all or summarized them in a light, that is unfavorable to the petitioners, which is prejudicial to the plaintiffs.

At a reception held in Los Angeles, California, on March 9th, Justice Scalia has told the audience of some 300 attorneys, members of the media, business and entertainment industries, that the cases are heard in the Supreme Court based on importance. He reiterated that it is not the beauty of the argument and legal reasoning, but importance of the case.

The instant case, dealing with a fundamental Constitutional question, affecting each and every citizen of these United States, in alleging a complete lack of legitimacy in the presidency of Barack Obama is a question of great public importance.

It was supposedly heard by the full conference of nine justices on January 23rd and yet, the Justices did not think this issue to be important enough to forward to the next step, to the open court for argument on the merits of the case.

At the same time it was announced on the radio that the Supreme Court has heard a case dealing with the rights of smokers of light cigarettes to sue tobacco industry; and two Justices, including Chief Justice Roberts, have written lengthy opinions on this issue.

The undersigned reiterates that at issue is the probable illegal usurpation of our highest elected office by a foreign national, a citizen of Indonesia and possibly still a citizen of Kenya and Great Britain, Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama.

Were these allegations the case, and taken true as pled for the purposes of this Motion, any party illegally usurping the position of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of all the US Armed forces and assuming control of our nuclear arsenal would be in a position to devastate not only the United States but the world.

The only explanation that would provide any sanity to this fact, is that the clerks that are sorting some 80,000 cases that are submitted to the Supreme Court each year and helping pick 0.1%, roughly 80 most deserving cases; the clerks that are preparing the summaries for the justices, have never shown this case Lightfoot v Bowen to the Justices or have summarized it in false light.

21. Attached hereto and incorporated by reference is a letter from the magazine World Net Daily, showing that 326,841 American Citizens have signed the petition to hear this matter. Aside from the petition, World Net Daily has delivered to the Supreme Court 540,000 individual form petitions: 60,000 for each Justice, times nine. Additionally, it is estimated that some 100,000 Americans have faxed or mailed petitions drafted by themselves, not form petitions. This means that each Justice should have heard from roughly half a million American citizens, urging them to hear this case on the merits. While undersigned counsel questioned Justice Scalia during above mentioned book signing in Los Angeles, as to what happened, why the case was not forwarded to the open court hearing on the merits, he had absolutely no clue about the case, not this, nor similar cases by Wrotnowski and Donofrio. It is astounding that the Justice would get letters from half a million American citizens, urging him to hear the case on the merits, and wouldn’t remember one thing about the case. Again, the only reasonable explanation is that the clerks have never shown the Justices either this case Lightfoot v Bowen or letters from half a million American citizens supporting this issue. Due to the fact, that above mentioned became known to the under signed counsel only on March 9th 2009, a motion for reconsideration is filed at this late date due to special circumstances.

22. Due to the fact that there is evidence of sabotage within the Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee this petition will be forwarded to the Justices through regular channels; this petition will be hand delivered to Chief Justice Roberts at his appearance with students at the University of Moscow, Idaho, on Friday, March 13th, 4 PM. In case something happens to the under signed counsel and the counsel is prevented from hand delivering this motion, it is being posted on the blog DefendOurFreedoms.US; it is being mailed to each and every Justice by certified mail with restricted signature delivery, to be personally signed by the Justices; and it is being forwarded as a press release to Congress, Senate, State Houses of Representatives, State Senates, Governors of all 50 States, FBI, Secret Service, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Homeland security, Attorney Generals of all 50 states and 26,000 outlets of US and World media in order to bring awareness of the above to the World Community.

23. At the same meeting at the Unversity of Idaho the under signed counsel will be forwarding to Chief Justice Roberts a Petition for Quo Warranto and a Petition for Leave of Court to File as Original Jurisdiction her second case Easterling et al v Obama and State of Hawaii, whereby due to the fact that the Attorney General of the United states, Eric Holder, did not agree to institute Quo Warranto Proceedings against Mr. Obama, the petitioners led by active duty officer, currently serving in Iraq, Scott Easterling, Major General Carroll D. Childers, officers from all branches of the military, State Representatives and an elector are seeking the leave of court to file quo warranto as ex relators on behalf of the US government.

Attachments

APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS WITH REQUEST THAT APPLICATION BE TREATED AS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION. Filed December 11th, 2008.

SUGGESTION FOR RECUSAL OF HONORABL E CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND HONORABLE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES FROM SWEARING OF BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATESON JANUARY 20TH DUE TO DUE TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE FULL COURT CONFERENCE HEARING ON THE 23RD OF JANUARY OF LIGHTFOOT V BOWEN, SEEKING TO FIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA NOT ELIGIBLE FOR PRESIDENCY. Filed January 12th 2009.

SUPPLEMENT, MOTION TO DECLARE THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS FAILED TO QUALIFY BY DEFAULT UNDER US CONSTITUITON ARTICLE 2, §1, AND AMENDMENT20, PER RULE 21 (2)(B) AND (4). Duly filed January 15, 2009, not docket and not distributed to the Justices due to the refusal by clerk Bickel.

SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION FOR EMEGENCY STAY AND/OR INJUNCTION AS TO THE 2008 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MEETING AND ALTERNATIVELY AS TO CALIFORNIA ELECTORS. Supplement is based on the Executive Order by President Bush, issued January16, 2009. EXECUTIVE ORDER; GRANTING RECIPROCITY ON EXCEPTED SERVICES AND FEDERAL CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES FITNESS AND REINVESTIGATING INDIVIDUALS IN POSITIONS OF PUBLIC TRUST. Filed January 21, 2009.

Petition letter from World Net Daily to the Supreme Court signed by 326,841 American citizens.

“I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.”



___________________________, March 12, 2009

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Justice Scalia says: "Bring the case, I'll hear it!"

Excerpt from today's article in WorldNetDaily:

She [Orly Taitz] said, "I told Scalia that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v. Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan. 23 and now I represent nine state reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked, and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on original jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency."

Taitz said she had some worries asking the question.

"I have to say that I prepared myself to a lot of boo-ing, knowing that Los Angeles trial lawyers and entertainment elite are Obama's stronghold, however there was no boo-ing, no negative remarks," she said. "I actually could see a lot of approving nods, smiles, many gasped and listened intensely. I could tell, that even Obama's strongest supporters wanted to know the answer.

"Scalia stated that it would be heard if I can get four people to hear it. He repeated, you need four for the argument. I got a feeling that he was saying that one of these four that call themselves constitutionalists went to the other side," Taitz said.

"He did not say that it is a political question, he did not say that it is for the legislature to decide. For example, right after me another attorney has asked him about his case of taxing some Internet commerce and right away Scalia told him that he should address it with the legislature. He did not say it to me. He did not say that Quo Warranto is antiquated or not appropriate. No, just get four," she said.

She then bought Scalia's book and waited in line to get it autographed.

"I gave him the books to sign and asked, 'Tell me what to do, what can I do, those soldiers [her plaintiffs] can be court-martialed for asking a legitimate question, who is the president, is he legitimate.' He said, 'Bring the case, I'll hear it, I don't know about others.'"

Read the whole thing!

Orly Taitz needs your help

After the meeting with Justice Scalia, I realized that he never heard about my case Lghtfoot v Bowen or any other cases brought to the Supreme Court about Obama's lack of eligibility for presidency. Supreme Court gets some 80,000 cases and hears only about 80. So, they hear only about 0.1% of the cases brought to them. I believe the nefarious clerks that are actually running the show, are advising them about the importance and the strength of the cases, summarize the cases for them. I need to know if the other Justices have a clue about the cases. At the meeting Scalia told that they pick the cases based on importance. At the time they had a conference on my case Lightfoot v Bowen and didn't find eligibility of president to be important, they found litigation on light cigaretes to be important. Either this is a complete insanity, or the clerks have never shown the case to them.

The Justices of the Supreme Court travel around the Country all the time and give lectures and sell their books. Please, let me know, when those justices come to your area. Either I will come or you have to demand answers from them: Why didn't they forward from the conference to the open court argument my case Lightfoot v Bowen? or any other cases on this issue? Don 't they think legitimacy of president is as important as litigation on light cigarettes. American citizens deserve a clear answer from them, why didn't they hear the case and what will it take for them to hear the case in open court and subpoena Obama's records. If you have a date and time, call me 949-683-5411

Posted by Dr. Orly Taitz at 3/10/2009 11:15 AM