That is right. The plaintiffs had such a terrible case that they lost without the defendant even offering an argument, or showing up.
Your beliefs have so little legal merit that you couldn’t win even when your side was the only one presenting ‘evidence’. That is pretty pathetic.
I wish Georgia had ruled Obama ineligible, but apparently your side has even less merit than I believed. How sad is that?
By deciding this matter on the merits, the Court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of Defendant's attorney, Mr. Jablonski. This Decision is entirely based on the law, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented at the hearing.
Those are the last sentences on page 3.
Footnote 1 on page 2 is most interesting... This Decision has been consolidated to include the four challenges to President Obama's candidacy filed by Plaintiffs David Farrar, et al., David P. Welden, Carl Swensson, and Kevin Richard Powell
Page 4 begins with...I. Evidentiary Arguments of Plaintiffs Farrar, et al
Yep, decided on the merits of the arguments, not upon any evidence.