Posted on 10/03/2009 10:12:08 PM PDT by devere
The Miers nomination didn't present legal status quo issues, wasn't a legal issue at all, and was not in any way similar to this. Just saying...
I don’t know which is funnier these days — the kooky Orly Taitz, esq., graduate of some esteemed online legal institute, or the folks here on FR that hold her up as some sane and reasonable patriot. These Orly threads get better every time this NCM woman files something.
Or so it appears. Someone has been hacking into Taitz' blog getting it in effect banned for distributing malware, including to FR. No reason why the same folks could not have hacked into the FR database and changed a few dozen "member since" dates. Most of them I'd never heard of. (Not all, but most) until the CoLB controversy broke out.
The shoe may or may not fit, but it was still unprofessional behavior. Prejudicial too.
Humble has never been humble. It's the name of a town in Texas. Humble (TX) isn't humble either. Look it up.
The risk must be taken. Otherwise, what would we be defending? The Republic would be dead anyway.
That may be, but an incompetent nut did not write her last two filings, the response to the Motion to dismiss, and the sur-reply to the reply of the defense to that response. Those were pretty darn well written. I even suspect plaintiff Keyes may have had a hand in the response.
But we shall see what we shall see, come noonish tomorrow, CDT.
I guess you could call being dismissed for lack of standing, "losing", but in any event she hasn't lost the one the Central District of California, not yet anyway.
We'll see tomorrow.
I hope she can restrain herself, inside the courtroom. Outside, I hope she can at least not denigrate the Judge, regardless of how he rules tomorrow. The man is a genuine hero. Nearly killed at Khe Sanh, was almost hauled away in a body bag because they thought he was dead. He spent months in the hospital recovering.
OTOH, that means he has faced all that General Giap, PAVN, could through at him. I doubt any long legged Chicago Mack Daddy is going to intimidate him, or that weasel Holder either.
What was the intent of those filings, if not to keep things hidden? For example EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LIMITED STAY OF DISCOVERY or their Motion for Dismissal
The former actively sought, successfully to continue to hide information. The latter, is all about standing, jurisdiction and other "technical" issues, not defending Obama as in "He is so eligible".
Yea it would be, but there doesn't seem to be one available at the movement.
You either go with what you got, or concede. Ms Taitz is about all we've got. The others aren't much better and are even farther away from any kind of conclusion.
I try to take comfort in the fact that one of the defendants is former Ambassador Alan Keyes, appointed to that post by Ronald Reagan, and heck of a good writer and speaker, if not such a good candidate for political office.
Seems as though the last couple of days they’re getting frenetic (right word?). All kinds showing up, including brand new signups.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! I'm not shaking in anything and I sincerely doubt that Obama even knows that the hearing is tomorrow.
Tomorrow is just another day in the Obama story, win lose or draw the battle will continue until a real just and lawful answer comes forth.
Yeah how's that going for you? I see no wins, no draws, and a whole lot of losses in Orly's legal history in this regard.
It did display a certain lack of judicial demeanor, true. But other judges have been just as exasperated at the Birther cases and have let their frustration show. I don't think it's automatic cause for appeal.
Getting dismissed does exhibit a lack of winning. And we should find out, perhaps as early as this week, if her record remains unblemished.
The man is a genuine hero. Nearly killed at Khe Sanh, was almost hauled away in a body bag because they thought he was dead. He spent months in the hospital recovering.
I agree. And regardless of how he rules on this case he will remain a true American hero in my eyes. But we both know that should he rule for the defense on the motion to dismiss a considerable percentage of your compatriots will question everything from his sanity to his patriotism to his masculinity.
OTOH, that means he has faced all that General Giap, PAVN, could through at him. I doubt any long legged Chicago Mack Daddy is going to intimidate him, or that weasel Holder either.
And I guess we'll see if you join your buddies on savaging him.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! I'm not shaking in anything and I sincerely doubt that Obama even knows that the hearing is tomorrow.
Well I have to give you credit for owning up to being an obot. I guess your batteries are so run down from posting and shaking that you can't shake anymore, next time try energizer or just plug directly into the wall for a charge. Obama doesn't know $hit about the economy, Afghanistan, the Constitution, or running a liquor store much less a country but I assure you he knows about the hearing.
Nominated for "Post of the Thread" Award!
Denying it would be futile. I just chalk it up as being as inaccurate as everything else you post.
...but I assure you he knows about the hearing.
The economy and Afghanistan have a lot for him to worry about. This hearing has nothing.
The intent it to go through the proper steps, making the proper arguments, at the proper times, in response to being sued.
The "technical" issues are what the court has to decide first before there can be a trial. That's how it works. You are suggesting either that O's lawyers should have tried to have the trial before there was one, or should have waived all their responses and asked to go straight to trial. That might sound good to you, but no lawyer is going to think that's a good plan.
Why not? If they have absolute proof that their client is not what the opposition says. It would save a lot of money. Our money, since it's the DoJ lawyers doing this.
I've been called for jury duty 5 times. Each time I was sent home without serving on a jury because many of the parties settled before trial, and I didn't even get on the panel from which a jury would be seated. Except twice I did get picked for a jury panel, and heard the "challenge" proceedings, but they didn't challenge or otherwise disqualify enough jurors to get to me. At least one of those was settled before trial, the other was so long ago, circa 1980, I don't remember if it went to trial or not.
But I have another jury summons sitting on my desk right now for October 26th at the county seat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.