Replies

Which is fortunate since he has none. The denial of standing isn’t something to celebrate. And it’s lazy crutch. They teach that in law school:

“Standing doctrine confuses both lower courts and litigants, because the Court manipulates the doctrine to serve other objectives. When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed. Conversely, when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case—or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court —, the requirements for standing are tightened.”
link to source

All any court will ever need is a certified copy of a Barack Hussein Obama II Hawaii Certification of Live Birth and if his attorneys want to do overkill they can include notarized letters of authentification from Dr. Fukino (or the new Hawaii Director of Health) and Dr. ALvin T. Onaka, the Hawaii state Registrar of Vital Statistics.

Standing is no legal obstacle for any halfway decent attorney. You simply present the right lead plaintiff in a case, one who suffered direct harm from the event that you are suing about.
If I were a birther attorney, I would have convinced either John McCain or Sarah Palin to be the lead plaintiff and I would have sweetened the pot for them to take that role with no primary opposition in 2010 for McCain and a guarantee of big Republican National Committee funding for Governor Palin in 2012, if she chooses to run.

I find it hard to believe that NO judge in America wants to rule on Obama eligibility.

Judges don’t like to be reversed on appeal and the very first thing that any defendant’s attorney submits in any civil lawsuit is a motion to dismiss. That’s law school 101.
Not one Obama eligibility lawsuit has been reversed on appeal and ordered to grant standing to any plaintiff.
Finally, not every Obama eligibility lawsuit has been dismissed on Article III standing grounds. Some have been dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Meaning the Courts have no jurisdiction to reverse the outcome of a national election.

They've had plenty of opportunities to do this already. Next. If they had it, it would have been shown by now. You know this and pretend otherwise.

Standing is no legal obstacle for any halfway decent attorney.

I just quoted you law-school text that says otherwise. What part of that did you not understand?? "when the Court wishes to avoid deciding the merits of a case—or perhaps, when it wants to shut a whole category of cases out of court —, the requirements for standing are tightened.” This indicates that courts work on the whim of the judges. If they don't want to hear the case (to avoid negative political controversy) it doesn't matter who you handpick as the plaintiff or what harm you want to claim.

I find it hard to believe that NO judge in America wants to rule on Obama eligibility.

Bwah??????? Aren't you one of the folks who keeps coming up with a judicial scorecard?? You know as well as I that if a judge wanted to rule on this case, he or she would have no problem doing so. Again, I quoted law-school text that explains this. "When the Court wants to reach the merits of a case, the standing doctrine is often relaxed." These judges have avoided this case for political reasons, not legal reasons, and some do so in the most loony, immature and illogical ways as I've shown on more than one occasion (and as you usually prove for me along the way).