It seems as though your criteria for whether or not a case has been decided on its merits is whether or not you get the answer you want.
No, that is not the case. but the judgement gave no reasoning in relation to the cases cited as precedent by those bringing the lawsuit.
He basically stated that since the State of HI said he was born in HI, he therefore was a “natural born citizen” as required by the Constitution.
Now how is that judging it on the merits of the case.
I stated earlier that the resolution of this must come from HI. Since they have stated he was born there.
But there is not a shred of evidence to support that except what is clearly a conjured document he presented in a .pdf format.
Examination of the .pdf document clearly shows it was not scanned from an original COLB. I have looked at the document he presented as his “long form” COLB. It is made up of multiple images, It has multiple pixel resolutions. It has various font styles, even within individual lines.
There is a “reason” for this to drag on so long. It is not as simple as some have stated that his birth name does not say Barack H. Obama, Jr. If it was that easy to explain, it would have been done long ago.
You're funny. I guess you missed the part where the Judge said the Birth Certificate copy from the internet isn't good for anything, but then said that he considers Obama born in Hawaii.
What evidence does the Judge have that Obama was born in Hawaii? The only piece that "sort of" indicated it the Judge Rejected!
How is coming to a conclusion without evidence deciding a case on it's merits?