“But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.”
Why do some of us accept this blatant double standard while our nation is being torn apart? Why do not we insist on using the same logic that they always use do to promote their socialist agenda. Here is an example .... READ ON>>>>>
But when, as here, an election result for President is a significant fact in the litigation and the normal election cycle is so short that the winner will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If such a result is beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Elections for the highest office in the land effect the foundation of the our nation. If our republic is to survive, eligibility requirements and the rule of law will always be with us. This action provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness.”
Barnett, et. al. v Obama, US District Court Judge David O. Carter: “There may very well be a legitimate role for the judiciary to interpret whether the natural born citizen requirement has been satisfied in the case of a presidential candidate who has not already won the election and taken office. However, on the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs attempt to subvert this grant of power to Congress by convincing the Court that it should disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president. The process for removal of a sitting president—REMOVAL FOR ANY REASON—is within the province of Congress, not the courts.”—U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, October 29, 2009