Staff Reporter | Posted December 4, 2008 12:50 PM
The
controversial effort to challenge Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship got
unexpected support when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pushed
the issue onto the Court's docket for Friday after it had been rejected
last month.
The Court will decide on Friday whether to consider a New Jersey case against Obama that charges the president-elect has not demonstrated his U.S. citizenship, as required by the Constitution.
The case, Donofrio v. Wells, was filed by Leo C. Donofrio against New Jersey Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells and heard by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
On Monday, November 3, an application (08A407) for a "stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari" was submitted to Justice David Souter, who denied the request on November 6.
A week after Souter's rejection of the case, the application was refiled and submitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. Instead of rejecting the application, Thomas distributed it to his colleagues, and the issue was scheduled for conference on Friday, December 5. A brief from Donofrio was filed the day before Thanksgiving and the conference is not set to take place, according to official Court records.
While the justices are convening inside the courthouse, demonstrators will be gathering outside for a vigil in support of the case.
The New Jersey case is one of several challenges to Obama's election, including a federal suit by Philip Berg from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania, and one by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes in California. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Berg case after the lower court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. Several other suits filed have been dismissed in Hawaii and Ohio.
The Obama campaign argues that Barack Obama is a naturally born U.S. citizen, born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961 and his birth certificate has been validated by officials in that state.
The latest move by Justice Thomas was first reported by the Washington Afro-American newspaper, which described it as a "highly unusual move."
The Electoral College is scheduled to meet on Dec. 15 to certify Obama as the next president of the United States.
"Donofrio is questioning Obama's citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mom was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama's dual citizenship does not make Obama 'a natural born citizen' as required by Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution," according to the Afro story.
After Souter rejected his case, Donofrio followed the rules of
procedure for the Supreme Court and re-submitted the application as an
emergency stay in accordance to Rule 22, which allows an emergency stay
request to be given to another justice, at the choice of the
petitioner, according to the Afro story.
"Thomas's actions were
rare because, by custom, when a justice rejects a petition from his own
circuit, the matter is dead," the Afro reported.
If the Court accepted the case and ultimately overturned the election results, it would be the second time in 8 years that the Court had intervened in a presidential election. Thomas, the only African-American member of the Supreme Court, famously participated in the controversial Bush v. Gore case in 2000.
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state of Florida to suspend its recount of votes that could have determined the winner of the election. In the end, George W. Bush defeated Vice President Al Gore by 537 votes in the state of Florida.
Articles written by a Staff Reporter are unsigned reports from a member of the staff.








I am NOT a Clarence Thomas fan. As a matter of fact, I consider him a disgrace to the African American race. However, if the issue was indeed dead after Justice Souter ruled, why did it get to Justice Thomas? My understanding of the process is the case would have gone to each Justice, even if one of them rejected it. In bringing this to the group, rather than each individual, Justice Thomas has, in fact, done something "good" in getting a quick resolution to this absurd issue. If my understanding is off, please enlighten me.
Posted by: HE WILLIAMS | December 15, 2008 at 06:10 PM
Clarence Thomas is one of a handful of government persons that still give me a glimmer of hope that the Constution is still valid.What does to defend and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic mean?They take an oath to God to do this, what if Mugabe some how bought the election and won, is it now the citizens duty to do what those you swore to God wont?
Posted by: tony xaviel | December 06, 2008 at 04:39 PM
Clarence Thomas is one of a handful of government persons that still give me a glimmer of hope that the Constution is still valid.What does to defend and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic mean?They take an oath to God to do this, what if Mugabe some how bought the election and won, is it now the citizens duty to do what those you swore to God wont?
Posted by: tony xaviel | December 06, 2008 at 04:34 PM
Aside from the fact that this man has absolutely no significant accomplishments of note and a very mysterious background, which has not been vetted to my satisfaction, There is not strong evidence that he is, in fact, a natural born citizen and some evidence that he may not be. Let's see the real proof. Interesting reading here: http://colony14.net/id41.html
Posted by: g miller | December 06, 2008 at 11:02 AM
There is no question that fairness and justice should prevail. However When we should be focusing on economy, jobs, war and all the other problems we have at hand, this is a very obsurd way of wasting everyone’s time. It’s time to move on, look forward and not constantly question this guy's authenticity - not that he did not go through this enough times during his campaign.
Posted by: Suggestions 4 Obama | December 05, 2008 at 05:56 PM
Another unfortunate but entirely appropriate use of the N-Word is in order HERE.
This individual is a despicable, self-hating and perverted excuse for human being.
How even “boss” could hold him in anything but contempt escapes the rational mind.
Brother Boog
A/K/A L. Napoleon Cooper
Posted by: L. Napoleon Cooper | December 05, 2008 at 04:48 AM