SHOCKER!! Snopres Lied!~~

[Teresa Heilevang]

“…. In our Search for the truth...   …..department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check this out and they said it was false and there were no such dockets so I ‘Googled’ the Supreme Court, typed in ‘Obama-Kagan,’  and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied.Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote Snopes:
      Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Court’s website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to  I have long suspected that you really slant things and twist the truth..but this was really shocking.
     Thank You, I hope you will be much more truthful in the future.
*************

That being said, I’ll bet you didn't know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them.
Folks, this is really ugly.

Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on...

Once again the US Senate sold us out!
          Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama.

She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.

          Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket:

You can look up some of these hearings and guess what??
 Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!!

 Check out these examples:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Sear ch.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm>

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm>

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm <http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm>

**the above article and findings are not mine**

[Solus]

Need a link to the Snoopes write up were it lists the dockets as not being true.

Anyone have it?

Thanks

[Hazcat]

Here ya go

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/kagan.asp

and another

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/kagan.asp

[TAB]

snoopes make mistakes all the time... I have never trusted them.

Then again, the crap people will beleave never fails to amaze me.

[tombogan03884]

Considering that she was the Solicitor General of the United States Snopes is not "making a mistake, they are out right lying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States

The United States Solicitor General is the person appointed to represent the Government of the United States before the Supreme Court of the United States. The most recent Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, was nominated to the Supreme Court and confirmed by the Senate in August 2010.[1] The Principal Deputy, Neal Katyal, is currently serving as Acting Solicitor General.[2]

The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government in virtually every case in which the United States is a party,

much more about the office at link

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

Without getting into the issue at hand, I'll just make one point. SNOPES is like Wikipedia. Its an all volunteer, nonpeer-reviewed outlet. They are right more often than they are wrong, but....you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.
FQ13

[crusader rabbit]

Without getting into the issue at hand, I'll just make one point. SNOPES is like Wikipedia. Its an all volunteer, nonpeer-reviewed outlet. They are right more often than they are wrong, but....you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor.
FQ13

They MAY hold an advantage of correct over incorrect, but there's really no coherent way to tell.  Given that Snopes is a volunteer organization, it needs to be granted the same credibility given to equally volunteer Wikipedia:  essentially none if the answer involves a right/left political question of ideology. 

Here is a Crusader truth, provable by observation:  The left will lie to advance their cause.  As with the mohammedanists, lying to an infidel is not only acceptable, it is encouraged.  I will add a postulate to this truth:  Whenever the supposed falsity can be recognized as potentially detrimental to the leftists agenda, the likelihood of it being ultimately true is substantially increased.  As an example:  I do not know that the Kagan appointment is payback for her squelching any investigation into Odamna's past.  I do think that there is substantial probability of it being true.  The fact that she was Odamna's SG increases the probability.  The fact that we the people know very little about Dear Leader's past would lend additional credibility to that assertion.

[Solus]

I went to the SCOTUS web site and did the   "obama kagan" search and found 11 results instead of the 9 results mentioned.

Two of the results were posted in the last half of this year and, most likely did not exist at the time of the original email and she Snopes statement.

I did look at the the dockets and, as far as I can tell, they do not pertain to Obama's eligibility question, as Snopes reported.  

There were 9 dockets that match the search and they just don't pertain to Obama's eligibility.

One of them involved a firearms possession charge and was filed by a prisoner.  Even though Obama was named in the petition, I doubt that the Solicitor General would personally appear for any of the proceedings for this case.

So, from what I have found, Snopes filed an accurate report.

HOWEVER, the last two are interesting.

I cannot determine with what the docket pertains and some dated entries are marked (sealed), which might mean they are not open for public view.

Each one also contains the statement "Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion"

Don't know what all this means, but the two dockets were brought by the same petitioner.

Kagan was not Solicitor General at the time but was/is a seated Justice.

Here is a link to one of the docket summaries

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-447.htm

[r_w]

http://xkcd.com/250/

You need to follow the link and read the mouse-over text.

[tombogan03884]

http://xkcd.com/250/

You need to follow the link and read the mouse-over text.

Found my favorite  

http://xkcd.com/308/

And this one, 

    http://xkcd.com/443/

r_w, you owe me about 90 minutes of my life