Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Air Force officer, brought a legal challenge to Obama’s eligibility in Federal District Court, District of Columbia. Judge James Robertson in refusing to hear evidence about whether Obama is eligible wrote in his notice dismissing the case, "The issue of the president's citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America's vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama's two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court." The very evidence pertinent to the dispute at issues was ignored, replaced with judicial witticism.
The case proceed to the Court of Appeals. This court affirmed the Robertson ruling. It was next appealed the U.S. Supreme Court. The court refused to consider the case, however, they ignored a critical part of the pleadings that included the issue that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor must recuse themselves on the ground that they were appointed to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court by Defendant Obama, rendering their participation in any consideration of the issue improper for if Obama was determined not to be eligible, the Kagan and Sotomayor positions are null and void.
Hollister’s motion to recuse explains that federal law requires that judges exclude themselves when circumstances arise that would involve "even the appearance of impartiality."
"It would seem literally to apply to Justice Kagan in any case since she was serving as Solicitor General during the pendency of this and other cases involving the ineligibility question. The U.S. Attorney did make a brief appearance in this case in the appellate document and did appear in many parallel cases," the motion said.
Attorney Hemenway laid the mark down in Hollister’s pleadings before the Supreme Court. "The real question here is one of getting members of the judiciary to take seriously the oath that they swore to protect and preserve the Constitution," Hemenway wrote in his petition for rehearing. "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."
He continued, "If proven true, those allegations mean that every command by the respondent Obama and indeed every appointment by respondent Obama, including the appointment of members [Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor] of this and every other court, may be only de facto but not de jure [by right of law]," states the pleading.
"Further, his signature on every law passed while he occupies the Oval Office is not valid if he is not constitutionally eligible to occupy that office de jure," it continued.
"Thus, it is not hyperbole to state that the entire rule of law based on the Constitution is at issue. Moreover, it would indicate that the respondent Obama ran for the office of president knowing that his eligibility was at the very least in question.”
Regardless of one’s position on Obama’s eligibility, The United States Supreme Court is by avoiding to act in Hollister condemning each and every one of us to the uncertainty that justice can be nothing more than a nice concept, as in this court’s decision in Dred Scott, a black man, a slave, ruled to be nothing more than some ones property.
Such decisions do try men’s soul but you are not powerless. The genus of our Constitution is that it provides many legal ways to skin a cat or protect your liberty and freedom from any form of tyranny.
IMPEACHMENT. Had enough yet? Call your congressperson. Not to fight this fight, “…may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams
