24 Responses to “Screenshot of the docket at 10:27 am, no decision posted”

1. Rva guy
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:38 am

   I was hoping for a bit more than that

2. JUDITH BAILEY`
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:42 am

   Dr. Orly, I have just read that the Supreme Court has refused to hear your eligibility case. Is it true and if so what else can be done to get this man out of office. If this is true then just as i thought the corruption has reached to the highest level of this country. I am very angry and ready to march on Washington. I vote with the Tea Party and i hope that they will plan a march this spring or summer.

3. Francisco
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:42 am

   Where can we go to read the decision ?
   Would it appear under Docket number 12A606 ?

4. Helen Wait
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:46 am

   Did they not assure you of an expedited decision? Do you think that they will post it on their website after they make the announcement on CNN?

5. Rick Roll
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:47 am

   Thank you for giving us the truth – those obots are saying your case was dismissed. I knew we can’t trust them. Victory is assured. Obots lie.

6. Brian
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:50 am

   Feb 19 2013 Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

7. Helen Wait
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:50 am

   I just checked the docket and the page comes up completely blank. Was your case erased from the docket?

8. Dan Hall
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:52 am

   Dear Orly,
   Do you have an alert email list? If so, please include me on it! I am following your work as closely as I can.
   Do not give your adversaries any though (unless it’s for your protection) as they are not worth it. It is sad that some people are so MISERABLE and FULL OF HATE! Too bad for them.
   Thank you soooo much for standing up for what’s right Orly! You are my hero. Keep fighting the good fight. And I am excitedly waiting for the Supreme Court Decision you are posting today!!!!!
   Sincerely,
   Dan,
   Longmont Colorado

9. Derek earl
   February 19th, 2013 @ 7:58 am

   Everytime I go to the docket, nothing is there now. I wonder if it is just my phone?… It has worked before, even earlier this morning but as of right now that link is blank… What’s going on?

10. JUDITH BAILEY`
    February 19th, 2013 @ 8:00 am

    Thank you for the update. If Supreme Court refuses to hear this case what other options does the American people have. I have called my representative at least four times concerning this and she will not give me a answer. Shelly Moore Capito is running for Senator and if she refuses to answer me on this issue i told her office that she would not get my vote.

11. Connie
    February 19th, 2013 @ 8:15 am

    Help~ I’m dying to know what is happening? Praying you will be successful!

12. Connie
    February 19th, 2013 @ 8:16 am

    Oh, the link to the screen shot is not working.

13. eliadsavel
    February 19th, 2013 @ 8:49 am

    Federal Court Indicts OBAMA , 11 March 2013 INPEACHMENT Start. PAKALERT PRESS.

14. Peaches
    February 19th, 2013 @ 8:59 am

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

    Feb 19 2013

    Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

15. Peaches
    February 19th, 2013 @ 9:03 am

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12a606.htm

    Feb 19 2013

    Application (12A606) denied by the Court.

16. Bill Fitzpatrick
    February 19th, 2013 @ 9:08 am

    ON THE LIST IT SAYS THAT 12a606 AND 712 ADDRESSED TO ROBERTS ARE DENIED???? IS THIS CORRECT??????

17. Jon Seidel
    February 19th, 2013 @ 9:42 am

    I just searched the SCOTUS web page for the docket and while it still appears in the search results, clicking on it to bring up the details brings you to a blank page. Is someone updating the information on it, or is it being deleted???

18. Obummermust go
    February 19th, 2013 @ 10:33 am

    I.just looked it up says its denied docket number 12a606 at supremecourt web sight.

19. Obummermust go
    February 19th, 2013 @ 10:33 am

    I.just looked it up says its denied docket number 12a606 at supremecourt web sight.

20. Stephen Huffman
    February 19th, 2013 @ 1:26 pm

    I can imagine them clearly in my mind, arguing with each other…

    “There will be riots if we do this”….
    “There will be riots if we do not do this”…

    Time for them to decide on which side of the riots they wish to be on.

21. Patriot
    February 21st, 2013 @ 6:39 am

    If the court makes argument that consitution allows for process of Impeachment so they can’t do anything because he is already sworn in.
    –Arugument needs to be made as follows —-

    The process of Impeachment applies to “eligible” persons for the office. As noted in Clinton case before court Impeachment process is considered a protection – not only a removal process. You can’t offer somebody the protection of the office unless the qualify for it. The court can rule on eliglibity for office as impeachment deals with conduct after office is held. The two don’t have anything to do with each other.

    If you found out a “liscenced doctor” was acctually an imposter would you allow him to practice until his court date? Ask court.

    If you found out a pilot “was an imposter” or ineligble as he didn’t really have good vison as test were fraudelent would you tell him to fly home on major airline? Ask the court?

    No – eligiblity is seperate clause in constition and seperate from “conduct” – conduct while in office is “impeachment”. Eligiblity is a consitutional provision the has to be meet before you can afford “protections” a lawful eligible sworn in presdent.

    The court likes to say there is impeachment process so we cant do anything but they are ignoring elibilty issue which is seperate clause and stands on its own – you can’t use process that is meant to saction or protect a person inelgible for that process.

    The court should find his was ineligable and declare his presidency “invalid” and declare he can be afforded process of impeachment because he isn’t eligible for such proctection as he didn’t meet requirements of office.

    Clinton case provided precedent the “impeachement clause” also provides protection to sworn presidents. But you can’t provide protections to an ineligle presdient or fraudlent office holder. Do you allow Piolt or doctor to practice until process in court – no you remove them in cuffs.

22. Patriot
    February 21st, 2013 @ 6:43 am

    Spellchecked —– errors corrected —-

    1. If the court makes argument that Constitution allows for process of Impeachment so they can’t do anything because he is already sworn in.
    –Argument needs to be made as follows —-
    The process of Impeachment applies to “eligible” persons for the office. As noted in Clinton case before court Impeachment process is considered a protection – not only a removal process. You can’t offer somebody the protection of the office unless the qualify for it. The court can rule on eligibility for office as impeachment deals with conduct after office is held. The two don’t have anything to do with each other.
    If you found out a “licensed doctor” was actually an imposter would you allow him to practice until his court date? Ask court.
    If you found out a pilot “was an imposter” or ineligible as he didn’t really have good vision as test were fraudulent would you tell him to fly home on major airline? Ask the court?
    No – eligibility is separate clause in Constitution and separate from “conduct” – conduct while in office is “impeachment”. Eligibility is a constitutional provision the has to be meet before you can afford “protections” a lawful eligible sworn in president.
    The court likes to say there is impeachment process so we cant do anything but they are ignoring eligibility issue which is separate clause and stands on its own – you can’t use process that is meant to sanction or protect a person ineligible for that process.
    The court should find his was ineligible and declare his presidency “invalid” and declare he can be afforded process of impeachment because he isn’t eligible for such protection as he didn’t meet requirements of office.
    Clinton case provided precedent the “impeachment clause” also provides protection to sworn presidents. But you can’t provide protections to an ineligible president or fraudulent office holder. Do you allow Pilot or doctor to practice until process in court – no you remove them in cuffs.

23. Patriot
    February 21st, 2013 @ 6:51 am

    Correction forgot word – {{{not}}}

    The court should find his was ineligable and declare his presidency “invalid” and declare he can {{{not}}} be afforded process of impeachment because he isn’t eligible for such proctection as he didn’t meet requirements of office

24. patricia anderson
    February 23rd, 2013 @ 6:53 am

    …I fully agree with you, Patriot… in fact, if we were to accept an ‘impeachment process’, would we not somehow be controverting our claim that obama is constitutionally ineligible for the office which he has fraudulently obtained by pre-meditated and unlawful acts…

Leave a Reply