(image h/t Bluegal)
When Clarence Thomas denies an appeal, it should be a signal that bizarro world isn't quite bizarro enough to legitimize birtherbot Orly Taitz. But no, Justice Alito decided Orly should be given the courtesy of more than a curt dismissal. Not only did he decide that, he did it despite the fact that she didn't even make the right request!
A request to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito by "birther" attorney Orly Taitz asking that $20,000 in sanctions against her be reversed was referred on Tuesday to the entire court.
U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land imposed the sanctions last year after he warned her and then gave her a time limit to explain why he shouldn't fine her in the September 2009 case of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency.
Taitz appealed the sanctions to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That court upheld the sanctions in March, and Taitz sent an application for stay to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on July 8. Thomas denied it a week later.
Taitz then refiled it with Alito on Aug. 4. That request was referred on Tuesday to the entire nine-member court, the Supreme Court's website states.
Got that? Taitz chose the two most conservative teabagging justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. One declined; one accepted, at least to the extent of passing it around to the rest of them.
It's not like we didn't already know Alito was a reactionary hater, but this goes far beyond the pale. Orly Taitz is a half-wit publicity-seeking nutcase who has just been granted a piece of the Supreme Court's attention. I think we can safely assume Alito shares Taitz' agenda to delegitimize the President of the United States.
Oh, and poor Orly is having a problem because she's facing a lien on her property:
On Monday, a lien was filed on all of Taitz’s real property. Taitz said she wouldn’t give the government the satisfaction of taking her property or potentially her law license, adding she would pay the fine.
As of Wednesday, Taitz said on her website that she had raised $1,740 in donations.
Mason theorized that if the entire court dismisses the application for stay, it would be dismissed without consideration if she were to again refile it with another justice.
Mason is a little off on the analysis, in my opinion. Alito could have denied it summarily, too. Assuming he did so, did she expect Kennedy or Roberts to hear it?
It makes me want to go hunt down the standards for impeachment of United States Supreme Court justices. Alito may go down in history as the worst legacy of the Bush administration, even exceeding Iraq and Afghanistan.