Mississippi Democrat party running scared

scribd ^ | 05/06/2012 | edge919

[edge919]

The Mississippi Democrat party just filed a motion to dismiss a ballot challenge in from Orly Taitz on behalf of a couple of Mississippi voters. The motion, which is more than 200 pages contains a citation and copies from every known so-called "birther" case that has been filed. Also, in this challenge, they they seem to think this satisfies the Federal Rules of Evidence in regard to self-authenticating documents. The actual idea behind that rule is to submit certified copies of records to the court so that the documents can be inspected by all parties to ensure they contain the required certification elements. Also, they rely on out-of-court claims made on various websites to “verify” the legitimacy of said documents, when nothing in those statements contains an actual legal verification. The MDEC includes a ballot challenge in Illinois in which a photocopy of the printed PDF was submitted. Again, none of these items actually satisfies the FRE. The MDEC seems to be relying on a strategy of overwhelming the plaintiffs with everything they could find, plus the kitchen sink, ignoring that out of all the cited cases, not one time has a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate ever been submitted in any legal action. Out of the 200 plus pages in the Motion, an actual certified copy of Obama's alleged long-form would be compelling ... and Obama has TWO such copies, he alleges, so certainly he could loan one to them??

[edge919]

The consensus is the premise behind your posts. Why are you afraid to own that?? There’s no point in bringing up the consensus unless you think it proves correctness.

[BigGuy22]

The consensus is the premise behind my posts and I don't think it proves correctness.

That really isn't hard to understand.

[DiogenesLamp]

Every decision has gone against you. Every single one. You can cherry-pick quotes that you think give you a thread of support — so, good, use it on appeal! See if you can parlay some of that word play into a favorable decision.

You sound like Chief Justice Taney's cheer leading squad during his Dred Scott v Sanford decision! "Take that you D@mned Slave! Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! "

Sorry, not very persuasive from my perspective. Washington lost most every battle till he finally won. This battle won't be won in the courts, it will be won in the court of Public Opinion. That the courts have been all over the place in their decisions is more a cause for hilarity than anything else.

Whodathunk they would make up such silly crap to justify their rulings? :)

"New Jersey doesn't require proof to get on the ballot." HA HA HA HA HA!

"Georgia : We have no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, but on that basis we will rule him eligible!"

They should write a Saturday Night Live skit for this. It's just that funny!

[BigGuy22]

“Every case has gone against you, so therefore you are WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! “ “
__

Ooops, there you go again! I never made a judgment as to right or wrong. That is a straw man of your own invention, and you just can’t seem to let go of it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The fact that every single judge who’s looked at the issue has come to the same conclusion is strong evidence that there is an overwhelming consensus in the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted. Whether that interpretation is “correct” is a totally different issue, one on which I have expressed no opinion.

I don’t think that’s a difficult concept to understand, and I’m not going to keep repeating it.

All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish.

Let me try once more to acquaint you with the fallacy of your presentation.

Argumentum ad populum.

[edge919]

The “consensus” was already brought up in the OP. Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness. The part that is hard to understand is the lack of honesty.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, the fallacy is your own. As I’ve said over and over, the consensus doesn’t prove they’re right. I never said it did.

Then why do you keep repeating numbers?

I said that the existence of the consensus indicates that an understanding of the current state of the law is widely shared among judges.

Or a misunderstanding is widely shared among judges. Given the evidence available, this is the more likely scenario.

How anyone could regard an amendment grating citizenship to slaves means we must accept foreign citizens as President is just a stretch too far for a sensible man.

I have taken no stand on its correctness.

Sure you have. By equating falsity and truth as a matter of opinion you have taken a stand for falsity.

Would you be so confused as to the correctness or incorrectness of slavery?

[BigGuy22]

"All the physicists in the world had bought into the "Aether" theory until Einstein came along and demonstrated that it was rubbish."
__

Well, sort of, though Michelson and Morley had a lot more to do with it.

But the analogy between science and law fails utterly in a context like this. It is currently held (generally -- Dirac differed) in the Physics community that there is no ether. And if there is no ether now, there was no ether then. Scientific theories evolve, but scientific facts don't change, through consensus or anything else.

But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.

Whether any of these laws is *correct* or "incorrect* is a totally separate issue from whether they are in fact laws. And one of the ways that laws change is through a kind of consensus -- for example, the majority in Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal.

One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Ooops, there you go again! I never made a judgment as to right or wrong. That is a straw man of your own invention, and you just can’t seem to let go of it.

You are wrong in equating "correctness" as being proportional to the numbers of people who agree.

Your argument keeps summarizing as "This group of people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong." Rather than saying you are wrong because (for example) "John Bingham clearly stated, and the Congress clearly inserted the words "Natural born citizen" into the 14th amendment."

They didn't, but if they had THAT would be an example of you providing evidence to support your (by the proxy of the judges) claim.

You keep trying to deflect the argument back to "nobody in power agrees with you, therefore you are wrong." You simply chose not to argue the issue on the merits (same as the judges) probably because you know that on the merits the argument of regarding "anchor babies" as citizens can easily be taken apart.

[BigGuy22]

"Would you be so confused as to the correctness or incorrectness of slavery?"
__

What a silly question! I am not confused about any of the issues we have been discussing.

I can say with assurance that slavery was once legal in the U.S. And I can similarly say with assurance that slavery is currently illegal in the U.S.

And I can make those statements without stating any position on the correctness of slavery; that's simple logic. My failure to inject my opinion is not a sign of confusion, it's a way of stating facts and keeping them separate from opinions.

But I know that causes confusion, because everyone wants to argue with opinions that I've never stated.

[BigGuy22]

"Your argument keeps summarizing as "This group of people say you are wrong, therefore you are wrong.""
__

Nonsense. You keep summarizing it that way.

Why don't you give me a quote? Why don't you show something I said in which I concluded that you are wrong?

[BigGuy22]

"Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness."
__

Nope, now you're moving the goal posts.

I am not the MDEC and I do not speak for them. The MDEC may well be taking a position on correctness; I am not.

What I have said is that the conclusions of all the judges who have ruled on this matter shows that there is widespread agreement among the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted, and that agreement is by definition the current state of the law.

I am not -- I repeat, NOT -- saying that that interpretation is in any sense correct. I am simply saying what I am saying, that there is widespread agreement, even if some consider it to be widespread agreement on something incorrect.

[DiogenesLamp]

But the analogy between science and law fails utterly in a context like this. It is currently held (generally -- Dirac differed) in the Physics community that there is no ether. And if there is no ether now, there was no ether then. Scientific theories evolve, but scientific facts don't change, through consensus or anything else.

You are right that there is a great difference between science and law. In science, if an experiment keeps yielding ridiculous results, it is regarded as a failure and is therefore null and void. Not so in law in which there is such a worship of procedure, that the results are actually irrelevant as long as "procedure" was followed! Legal people tend to be "Procedure Nazis."

But laws do change. Slavery was once legal; it is not legal now. Abortion was once illegal; it is legal now.

Really? When did the Congress or any of the State legislatures pass a law legalizing it? Last I heard it was a collection of jackasses that made up a bunch of phoney bullsh*t regarding the 14th amendment, and then declared laws against it void.

You may regard this as an imprimatur of legitimacy, but from my perspective this is anything but. It is a case where a nation that was very much against something, out of respect for the institution of law, tolerated the edict of Authoritarian judges shoving something down their throats against their will.

The court soiled themselves with that ruling. (among others.) Even when they revisited it back in the 90s, the best justification they could come up with was "because we say so." (Stare Decisis) Even Liberal legal critics regard it as bad precedent and bad law.

One may disagree with that decision. But it is the law, and I am able to state that it is the law with absolute assurance without having to take any position on whether I feel that law is a good or a bad thing.

It is not the law. It is judges opinions which has come to be accepted as the ruling edict of today. People CALL it "the law." But it was not duly enacted by the consent of the governed. That people accepted it does not make it legitimate.

The Nazis made laws about Jews. The fact that they could do so did not make their laws legitimate, as they eventually found out.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, have no more time to waste on this today.

[BigGuy22]

"The Nazis made laws about Jews."
__

Godwin's Law.

Thanks for playing.

[edge919]

What I have said is that the conclusions of all the judges who have ruled on this matter shows that there is widespread agreement among the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted, and that agreement is by definition the current state of the law.

The only one moving goalposts is you. I've already address this "widespread agreement" claim by showing that the decisions actually use a variety of inconsistent arguments. Many of these decisions are based on lower court dicta, not WKA interpretations. And you're STILL using a concensus argument. Just admit it. It's still a fallacy to do so.

[BigGuy22]

“And you’re STILL using a concensus argument.”
__

I am certainly speaking of the consensus that exists, based on the fact that all of the judges who have ruled on the matter have come to the same conclusion. Not one has lent any support to the argument that the lack of two citizen parents precludes natural born citizenship. Not one. Nada. Zilch. There is a complete consensus on the conclusion, even if you want to quibble over the details of how they got there.

What I have not said is that I regard the consensus as evidence of correctness and, despite your insistence, you have still been unable to provide a quote in which I did so.

[Flotsam_Jetsome]

This has been a very interesting and informative thread, considering the sparse number of commenters involved. Though quite a bit longer than I expected it to be, I had to read the entire thing.

"I have taken no stand on its correctness."

You certainly seem to have taken some pains to avoid appearing to do so, but a careful reading of your commentary suggests otherwise. At #22 You (BG22) stated:

"You can apply your own logic to whatever quotes of Paine and Jay you care to cherry-pick, but until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser.

1. Straight-up Alinskyite bs. Explain how my logic is flawed or retreat from your supposition.

2. Show where I even cited a specific text by Paine or Jay, let alone where I "cherry picked" any quotes by them. Or are you instead suggesting that any quotes by Paine or Jay et al will perforce be "cherry picked?" Definite bias showing there.

3. "Your argument remains (and by extension, you also remain) a loser." Nice.

A trifecta in a single sentence. Impressive. And a fair attempt at subtlety in that last.
/s

[BigGuy22]

Nice try, but you’re missing the obvious.

Until the courts agree with you, your argument remains a loser. Once they agree, you’ve got a winner.

Couldn’t be clearer. It has nothing to do with what I consider correct or incorrect — I’m speaking simply of success or failure in court, and my conclusions are completely self-evident.

[DiogenesLamp]

Godwin's Law.

Thanks for playing.

Nazis, Slavery, Abortion, it's all the same thing really. The only question is, are you a supporter of evil or not? When you have the National Socialists in your corner, odds are you are on the side of evil.

The notion that "Laws" should override morality is completely wrong. "Laws" are nothing but codified morality, the only question is Who's morality will be the root of the law?